Canon 5D Mark2 vs Mark4? Recommend Mark IV?

[Neilg]

Going to get an a6300, seems to answer all of my wants - real shame about the wobbly shutter for video but that's secondary. Might even see if it's worth the extra over the 6000.

photography wise thy're basically identical, but video on the a6000 is kind of an afterthought whereas the 6300 it's serious. 4k on it looks great, and it's got a 120fps mode in 1080p. it's very, very impressive - but I dont think i'd be filming much video on my personal camera so I chose to save the money.

[joconnell]

Righty - it's nearly double the cost, will have a mull over it.

[crazy homeless guy]

The a6300 is an interesting camera but in our line of work megapixels do matter. The 5DS R would have been the better choice as it gives you 6 times the resolution for stills than what the a6300 will give you. Yes.. I did say 6 times the resolution! Though it is quite a bit more expensive but I am guessing your budget will allow it considering you were weighing a Mark IV vs D810.

Don't underestimate the importance of quality lenses. The old adage is that the lenses are more important than the camera. I am not sure what is available for the a6300.

[Neilg]

The a6300 is an interesting camera but in our line of work megapixels do matter. The 5DS R would have been the better choice as it gives you 6 times the resolution for stills than what the a6300 will give you. Yes.. I did say 6 times the resolution!

No it doesnt? it's double the resolution. 24mp vs 50. the a6000 shoots 6k x 4k, more than a 5d mk3 and around the same quality.

if your budget is $500 the sony is is the best on the market for stills - but if your budget is $3k then of course you should get a 5ds. you cant really compare them.

[crazy homeless guy]

No it doesnt? it's double the resolution. 24mp vs 50. the a6000 shoots 6k x 4k, more than a 5d mk3 and around the same quality.

Ahh.. Thanks for the correction. I had looked at the wrong pixel dimensions. Double resolution is a big deal though, at least to me.