- Nov 18, 2012
- 246
- 704
Isn't the MK4 ~$1000 more anyway?
Regardless, I don't see why people would get a 6D MK II over a 5D MKIII.
^This plus low light capabilities of the original 6D was already better than the MK III at the time.Well, a $1000 is still a $1000. Not everyone has the cash to burn and if they did, they might want to invest in getting a lens. The 6D has it's spot. It's for people that want full frame without all the flare and on a budget. At least the AF point are better. I do like the swivel screen though. Don't get why the MK4 didn't have that.
I rented a Sony a6300 for my trip to Utah earlier this month. Originally I wanted to rent the GH5 but was talked out of it to rent the a6500 instead but it was rented out at the time. Even without the image stabilization I felt like I was able to get a lot of good footage. I just wish I would of had more time to play with it but it did feel good using it for video purposes.I think canon is trying to draw the line in the sand of what photo cameras are and what video cameras are. idk
TBH if i wanted a camera that did amazing video i'd just go sony.
It was the first time taking my Phantom 4 along on a trip with me so I just wanted all the footage to match up which is why I rented the 4K Sony. I have one video finished from the trip, just waiting on approval from the company that sponsored the trip so I can post it on here.