Indecisive Moment - 5d Mark 3 or Leica M9

[carinatauk]

I am a bit of a quandary, I am having / want to upgrade my current DSLR [10 year old Canon].

I have had a break for a couple of years from photography, due to travelling and personal reasons.

I am now back where I need to be, with more free time and a desire to return to the fold.

I have used my father's Leicas many years ago and like the rangefinder for its weight, quality and the photographs I take, which have been predominantly street orientated.

On the other hand, I enjoy sport and wildlife photography which says DSLR not rangefinder. I already have a X2 which would provide a reasonable alternative to rangefinder albeit the lens size variation is not there.

Why the 5d? It was a toss up between the 6d and the 5d but I'm not interested in gimmicks [gps etc]. The 6d was attractive due to the weight however the speed of the 5d is more desirable.

I don't know why I am asking but a sizable purchase is always worth others' opinion.

In order to add flavour, I would get the new 24-70 L lens for the 5d or 28mm and 50mm for the Leica.

Fire away, it's good to listen

[Mr Will]

How about a 7D and an X100S? best of both and less than the price of a 5D...

[Disastrous]

Nice decision to have to make. I think I'd get the Leica, just because. To me the 5D is a great camera but seems like work tool, whereas the Leica seems like a camera to fall in love with.

can't be any more helpful than that, I don't think! Good luck

[tog]

Or the Fuji X-Pro? I keep hearing people rave about it, but I've never handled one myself.

[S47]

CANON 6D
Forget 5D-3. This is the cam you ought to get - Small FF - awesome cam.
Spend the balence over 5d on decent PRIME lenses.

[Mr Will]

S47 said:

CANON 6D
Forget 5D-3. This is the cam you ought to get - Small FF - awesome cam.
Spend the balence over 5d on decent PRIME lenses.

Sport and wildlife I'd still be tempted to go for an APS-C camera over full frame. The extra reach and FPS should come in handy and the savings (on both body and lenses) can go towards the Leica for low-light/shallow DoF/wide angle.

[Craikeybaby]

Isn't Leica all about the decisive moment

Mr Will said:

How about a 7D and an X100S? best of both and less than the price of a 5D...

This would also be my advice, you get the best of both worlds then.

I currently have a 5D and it is a good general camera, but it is bulky for travel photography and I find myself reaching from my old APS-C camera when I want to shoot sport/wildlife.

[2slo]

Given the choice between a 5D3 and a 7D, if you can afford it, I'd take the 5D3 every time (I have both). Not wishing to open the debate about noise handling between the two so I'll just say that it's much easier to get low noise shots with the 5D3 at higher ISOs than it is with the 7D. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is very good judging by the results I've seen, but don't write off the much cheaper 24-105 f/4 L which, as well as price, also has the advantage of image stabilisation over the 24-70 f/2.8.

[LongQ]

Not an obvious "either or" question.

But as a "neither" answer if you hanker after Leica, try this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...

[Mr Will]

2slo said:

Given the choice between a 5D3 and a 7D, if you can afford it, I'd take the 5D3 every time (I have both). Not wishing to open the debate about noise handling between the two so I'll just say that it's much easier to get low noise shots with the 5D3 at higher ISOs than it is with the 7D. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is very good judging by the results I've seen, but don't write off the much cheaper 24-105 f/4 L which, as well as price, also has the advantage of image stabilisation over the 24-70 f/2.8.

For general use, I'd agree with you. For a dedicated sports and wildlife camera, I disagree.

Put a 70-200mm f2.8 on a 7D and it becomes 112-320mm. Unless you are prepared to spend £5k+ on a lens the fastest equivalent on a 5D3 is f4, which should more than make up for the ISO difference. Then add in that the 7D has a 25% faster burst rate and greater DoF at the same aperture (beneficial for fast moving sports) and I think that the 7D is actually the better tool for this specific job. The £1500 that'd be left in your bank account to spend on something else is just a perk!

[2slo]

I can see your point but it depends on what the OP is wanting for the finished result. To continue your example, if I wanted best image quality with my 70-200mm f/2.8 I'd put it on my 5D3 and be prepared to crop the result against an uncropped shot from my 7D to offset the 1.6x crop factor on the 7Ds sensor.
No argument about saving money towards better glass however that may not be the OPs primary consideration, he didn't mention budget IIRC?

[Mr Will]

2slo said:

I can see your point but it depends on what the OP is wanting for the finished result. To continue your example, if I wanted best image quality with my 70-200mm f/2.8 I'd put it on my 5D3 and be prepared to crop the result against an uncropped shot from my 7D to offset the 1.6x crop factor on the 7Ds sensor.
No argument about saving money towards better glass however that may not be the OPs primary consideration, he didn't mention budget IIRC?

Would a crop from a 5D3 really be better than the same shot from a 7D? I wouldn't expect so, but you are probably better placed to answer that one than me!

Considering he's mentioning an M9 I'd guess the budget is pretty high but money saving is not the reason I'm suggesting the 7D; 7D vs 5D, I'd pick the 5D every time. 7D AND Leica vs 5D, I'm sorry but the 5D is staying on the shelf!

[2slo]

Mr Will said:

Would a crop from a 5D3 really be better than the same shot from a 7D? I wouldn't expect so, but you are probably better placed to answer that one than me!

Given the same settings in both cameras, yes, in my experience the shot from the 5D3 would look better than that from the 7D, including allowing for the crop. I'm not trying to put down the 7D btw, It is a very good camera and one which can produce really good results, especially if you're prepared to spend some time processing RAW images. My point though is that it's easier to get good results from the 5D3, especially at higher ISOs (over 1000)

[bashful]

If it's just one camera, it has to be the Canon - the Leica, although a fantastic camera, is unlikely to satisfy for wildlife and sports, while the Canon can do 'street' pretty well with a small prime lens (for example, adapted Leica 'R' lenses).

Or, do as I did, and get the Canon for autofocus/high speed work and pick up a Leica M8 and some Voigtlander or older Leica lenses to scratch that rangefinder itch without incurring the cost of an M9.

[carinatauk]

Thanks, not sure if it helped

There is no real budget, albeit the M9 would be second hand as they don't make them any more.

I can see the discussion on APS-C and the benefits of using it for the distance, but in real terms this isn't a real issue. If it is then I will get a 300 or 400mm lens.

Prime was always the intention, but I wasn't overally convinced about some the Canon lens.

6D vs 5D is a harder debate and it means more / better lens if I went 6D. I have tested both and couldn't decide

Leica, well that is really an itch to scratch!! M8 won't give me all I want tbh, I was really looking for the full sensor. If I go this way [M9], then the DSLR will be out for at least a few years; mainly because of the lens need [and cost].

I really appreciate the comments, it has helped.

The X100 is not needed, I have the Leica X2. This is truly fabulous and gives some stunning shots.

Bridge for me is not the way I wish to proceed