I am contemplating a 6D or 5D3. I need to decide if the purported ISO advantage of the 6D over the 5D3 is worth the loss in features. I see B&H now has the 6D at $1999.
I have already decided that Wifi is not a deal maker. The other 6D advantage is lower amp glow at long shutters.
I use Chrome and they just download and then open in ACR when I click the download. Read the comments and a suggestion is given for how to download in other browsers.
Hmm, I have a fast connection, I just downloaded 2 more with no problem. This is not my site, I just found it at another forum.
I also tried a 6D vs 5d3 at 6400, the 6D is slightly better, but I had to use Topaz heaviest noise setting to clean up either one and it clobbered detail. Not usable for my purposes. I suppose with some practice NR could be optimized by masking.
For reference, I find ISO800 the maximum usable for my 1DS-mk3. ISO1600 is ok for record shots, but not for artistic use.
If all of us are doing downloads we may be swamping the host.
Edit:
I just worked an 5D3 ISO1600 with some NR tricks including masking in ACR, luminance around 40 and Topaz light NR. This produced a workable image about like a 1DSmk3 at ISO800.
My initial thoughts are that ISO1600 is about as high as I would push this for night shots.
So far I have never seen a raw ISO 6400 from any camera that looked usable for artistic purposes. The high ISO fixed up NR'd sharpened, downsized images that still retain some information are impressive and would be good for spy work but not for large prints unless you like the grungy look.
In film days I considered Kodachrome 25 the standard for grain.
But I can use ISO800 for night work and a jump to 1600 is significant. That with a lens that is sharp at f2.8 makes possible images that were not so great a year ago.
But I can get a moonscape at ISO1600 and f2.8 with a fast enough shutter to freeze stars.
My first interest was dynamic range. They're all very close at stock settings. Then I did a standard conversion of the Lincoln shot at ISO 25600 with no major adjustments. The 6D retains color, the 5D II doesn't. The 5D III is behind the 6D.
The last test was to take the tower shot at ISO 800 and jack the shadows with +100 fill light. 5D II has blue shadows and banding. The 5D III has blue shadows. Only the 6D manages to keep fairly accurate color with no banding. This is the major improvement over the 5D II. Noise character is otherwise very similar even at high ISOs.
Detail differences at ISO 800 are very, very subtle. Between the 6D sensor and the 5D III, I'd take the 6D.
Looks like the 6D is winning (of course its newer tech), I still the 5D Mark III is hard to beat especially if you do action with the AF system. If you need the best high ISO performance, then I would go with the 6D.
I am still torn. Do I really need high ISO long shutter shots? My 1DS-mk3 almost works now and I suspect the 5D3 would be enough improvement here to suit my needs in such limited areas.
The 5D3 is attractive for other things. Coming from a 1D, I am afraid I would be unhappy with a less robust body perhaps even the 5d3. The 5D3 is probably the better daylight landscape camera compared to a 6D.
I just wish Canon had released a high MP body so that the choice would be clear.
