# 5D mk II still a viable option?



## erakepio (May 21, 2012)

Hi All,

posting this on behalf of a colleague who does not have internet at the moment. However he wants to upgrade from his 550D to one of the xD range of cameras.

He would like to know if shelling out for a new 5d II is still a good option? The 5d III is out his price range and he believes the 7D might not suit his needs.

He does a lot of landscape, low light (high exposure), some sports photography.

I went with the 7D as it suited my needs more. however I can't seem to convince him!


----------



## NormanBates (May 21, 2012)

I definitely wouldn't consider the 5D3 right now, unless you desperately need the improved AF or the clean video
personally, that's not enough for me to pay so much more ($3500 vs $2200), and therefore my decision right now is either 5D2, or switch over and get a D800

and given all this, in the end I'm just waiting to see if the 5D3 falls in price, as previous "losing models" have done (D700<5D2, 60D<D7000)
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6539.0


----------



## 7enderbender (May 21, 2012)

erakepio said:


> Hi All,
> 
> posting this on behalf of a colleague who does not have internet at the moment. However he wants to upgrade from his 550D to one of the xD range of cameras.
> 
> ...




I don't see how that would be a problem just because a newer version has hit the market. If he wants full frame and a really good Canon camera then this is a great time to get a brand new 5DII while their still available. It's a great all purpose camera with outstanding image quality.


----------



## awinphoto (May 21, 2012)

5d2 is a viable option as long as you dont mind focusing with the center point and recomposing AND OR manually focusing because the AF is horrid compared to the 7d... the 5d3 is a much better all around camera but the 5d2 is good if a full frame is a must... otherwise the 7d is almost a better all rounder camera compared to the 5d2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2012)

erakepio said:


> He does a lot of landscape, low light (high exposure), some sports photography.



Landscape and low light will be excellent with the 5DII. Sports will be a challenge with the 5DII's rather poor AF system (AI Servo tracking, in particular) and the relatively slow frame rate. Still, it's a great camera.


----------



## michi (May 21, 2012)

I have both the 7D and 5DII. The low light shots coming out of the 5DII shooting RAW are amazing. Not sure about the sports aspect though, a 7D might be more suited with better AF, higher frame rates and crop to zoom in. Tough choice there.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (May 21, 2012)

As a 7D owner who has attempted landscape work I wouldn't really recommend it but for the sports aspect I can't really fault the 7D - apart from the low-light performance which is famously poor - my landscape work is usually ND filter, long exposure work so I'm never shooting higher than ISO100 anyway

but for regular landscape stuff I wouldn't want to use my 7D unless I had excellent weather.

the 5DII is far superior when it comes to low-light work since it's full-frame sensor isn't totally crammed with MP likes the crop sensor of the 7D. It's has been a long time favourite with landscape photographers - sure the 5DIII is out now but the average joe can't dig out that amount of cash.

I've seen a fair amount of excellent sports/wildlife work coming from 5DII shooters so the camera isn't exactly bad when it comes to shooting birds in flight or sports even if it's frame rate is lower and the AF system isn't all that great.

Buying a 5DII used is a great option, I bought my 7D used at around £800 ($1,200) for the body and I couldn't be happier - I'm currently looking to get a used 5DII this year as the used price will be dropping gradually.

Personally, if it were me buying and I didn't already have a 7D right now, I would go for the 5DII


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 21, 2012)

The 5D MK II is a excellent choice, its still up to date and very well supported by third party manufacturers. CF memory cards are standard, and its compatible with even the 128mb cards. Even the original 5D is still popular.

i'm probably going to buy another when they come into stock at the Canon Refurb store.


----------



## arioch82 (May 22, 2012)

i'm only an amateur and i don't shoot any sport but i was in the same situation and i decided to go with a second hand 5d mark ii for $1500, i'm loving the fullframe and i would never go back to crop!


----------



## davidbellissima (May 22, 2012)

I own the 5D Mk I, ii & iii camera bodies. The Mk I will be going to a new loving home shortly. They are all extremely capable cameras and while each have their well documented individual benefits, they all offer value. Especially the Mk i which is now dirt cheap on the used market. In the UK the cost of new Mk ii bodies is holding firm meaning used bodies are also still holding firm. The price differential between the Mk ii and Mk iii is too large for the release of the Mk iii to impact Mk ii prices, in my opinion. 

Yesterday I was reminded of the fantastic quality of the Mk ii. I hadn't blogged a shoot I did last year with the Mk ii, and having been using the Mk iii for a couple of months now, these images just made me realise how fantastic the Mk ii is and I am more than happy for this to be my backup camera to the Mk iii. Here are some images:

http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/london-engagement-photography/london-engagement-photographer.html

I do agree that for sport or any sort of photography that places more demands on the focus system, I would seriously consider the 7D over the 5D Mk ii.


----------



## fotoworx (May 22, 2012)

The 5DMKII is still going to be a great camera 10 years from now.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 27, 2012)

erakepio said:


> He would like to know if shelling out for a new 5d II is still a good option?



At the moment, the 5d2 is the much better option when shooting video because it runs magic lantern - a look at the hdr video samples on vimeo should convince anyone, it's the absolute killer firmware. And even for standard still shooting it's extremely handy (automatic hdr which selects how many shots are needed, focus stacking, focus trapping, ...). It'll take quite some time until it is ported on the 5d3, my guess is at least a year.

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Unified


----------



## Richard8971 (May 27, 2012)

One of our photography buddies just upgraded to the mark III. He offered us his lightly used mark II (21K clicks) with battery grip for $1600.00. My wife and I love it so far. We have shot with the XT, XTi, 40D, 50D, T1i and our new 7D. The Mark II blows them all away as far as image quality goes. We couldn't be happier with our purchase. 

I bet you are going to see lots of Mark II's for sale as the III's get into the hands of more photographers. 

D


----------



## UngerPhotography (May 27, 2012)

The only downside I have found with the 5D II is the AF. However, the camera is meant as a studio/landscape body and for those uses i have never complained about the AF. The camera is not ideal for sports or action shots, but I have gotten amazing sports shots with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_unger/sets/72157629822941650/

I did recently purchase a 7D specifically for sports and wildlife, but I see no reason to upgrade my 5D II for my landscape and portrait needs. I would love to have a 5D III, but I certainly don't need it.


----------



## vbi (May 27, 2012)

If he is looking for IQ, particularly in low light, as well as detail, then the 5D2 is an excellent camera. For sports use the centre AF point and crop later if necessary. IQ wise, the 5D2 as with all full frame systems, is noticeably superior to the 7D.


----------



## briansquibb (May 27, 2012)

UngerPhotography said:


> The only downside I have found with the 5D II is the AF. However, the camera is meant as a studio/landscape body and for those uses i have never complained about the AF. The camera is not ideal for sports or action shots, but I have gotten amazing sports shots with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_unger/sets/72157629822941650/
> 
> I did recently purchase a 7D specifically for sports and wildlife, but I see no reason to upgrade my 5D II for my landscape and portrait needs. I would love to have a 5D III, but I certainly don't need it.




The centre AF point is very accurate on the 5D. Use that and you will get consistantly good results


----------



## UngerPhotography (May 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> UngerPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > The only downside I have found with the 5D II is the AF. However, the camera is meant as a studio/landscape body and for those uses i have never complained about the AF. The camera is not ideal for sports or action shots, but I have gotten amazing sports shots with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_unger/sets/72157629822941650/
> ...



No doubt. It is the main reason I was able to grab such great sports shots. I guess the other downside is the low FPS. Not terrible, but there are some sports where you want to catch more moments in the action. 

You can certainly can do sports with the 5D II, but it is not ideal. Just like you can do portraits and landscape with the 7D but is not ideal. They each are great cameras and have their specialties.


----------



## briansquibb (May 27, 2012)

UngerPhotography said:


> You can certainly can do sports with the 5D II, but it is not ideal. Just like you can do portraits and landscape with the 7D but is not ideal. They each are great cameras and have their specialties.



At least if you get the shot the image is superb


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2012)

To answer the OP's original question, YES, the 5D Mark II is certainly a viable option. I've considering getting one just so I could have the 5D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, and 5D Mark II as a backup. The one I used to own took great photos!


----------



## hectorjr (May 27, 2012)

Any photographer with good enough skills can work around the limitations of the camera to get the job done. Coming originally from a 3rd world country I've encountered countless photographers who use the 7D for everything (portraits, landscapes, weddings, sports etc.) because the 5D2 and L lenses were just too expensive, and ROI would take too long to be lucrative.

I have used the 5D2 extensively myself and have shot everything under the sun with it. Although I have to admit fast action shooting can be a challenge, but not impossible! The jaw-dropping images it produced made its shortcomings seem not at all that big a deal (your mileage may vary). Canon themselves seem to be disparaging the 5D2 so you'd shell out for the 5D3 instead, but make no mistake about it: the 5D2 is a GREAT camera.

Whether or not the price difference between the 5D2 vs the 5D3 is worth it is up to the individual I guess. For me it wasn't.


----------



## CJRodgers (May 28, 2012)

I just got a 5dmkii off ebay this weekend. REALLY happy with it. It has done a few more actuations than i wanted (50,000) but its in great condition and i got it for £1000 and i lived in the same city so i guy came and hand delivered to me! Very nice of him. I had 3K to spend, so the rest is going on lenses / flash now and ill upgrade my body in a couple of years. I was gutted when this latest generation of cameras came out at the higher price point, but im happy with my choice to get the 5dmkii and better glass.


----------



## Kernuak (May 28, 2012)

My main photography is wildlife and landscapes. When the 5D MkII was first released, I considered it as a replacement for my 40D, but I didn't because of the wildlife aspect. Then when the 7D was released, I checked the first RAW images available, compared the amount of noise relative to the 40D and jumped in with a pre-order, keeping my 40D as backup. As a wildlife camera for someone on a budget, it is difficult to beat, however, I immediately saw its weaknesses when photographing landscapes. It can certainly be used as a landscape camera, but it needs a lot more care, with hyperfocal distance and at narrow apertures, diffraction is obvious. After about 10 months, I decided to get a refurb 5D MkII purely for landscapes and it has given me a lot more flexibility in landscape photography and has helped me progress through experimentation and the confidence that the camera will provide the IQ I need. I don't use it just for landscapes however, I often turn to the 5D MkII for macro work, because of the IQ and also because I find it much easier to focus manually with it than the 7D. Also, when the light levels drop, I also use it for low light wildlife, for example, last year, I used it to photograph woodcock roding around 40 minutes after sunset, using centre point focus in one shot mode. It certainly isn't a sport/action camera though. I also used it to photograph diving gannets and that was an experience to say the least (I had concerns there was something wrong with my 7D at the time). I managed to get shots, but it was a single chance on each dive, so I had to anticipate every moment and try to time it right. That's fine where it is more or less predictable once the dive has started, but for more unpredictable moments, it just wouldn't get the shot.
So whether your friend goes for the 7D or the 5D MkII probably depends on whether he shoots more landscapes or more sports. Overall, the 7D probably has the slight edge as an allrounder, but also consider, that the cost of the 7D and 5D MkII together are still slightly less than the 5D MkIII.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

The 5D Classic is still viable option if your willing to work with it. 

The 5D MK.2 is even better but at this price point...

Why not just save the extra bit of cash and invest in the 5D3?

In the end, only you can justify the purchase you make. The only bit of advise is to buy what you really want and work hard to get it.

Otherwise you will regret you purchase and end up buying the piece of gear you wanted and wasting the time and money with whatever you weren't satisfied with.


----------



## hectorjr (May 28, 2012)

Good point. It goes without saying: buy the 5D3 over the 5D2 if that is really what your heart wants ;D 

When passion takes over reason in whatever situation price tags are more often than not ignored, hehe.


----------



## pakosouthpark (May 29, 2012)

im also going for a 5D mk ii but not sure if im going to get it with the kit lens - 24-105? 
what would you guys do? buy the body only and lens from other makers? i am on a budget so im considering buying lens from another brands (sigma/ tamron). will for sure get a 50mm 1.4 but need another one for general use.


----------



## superotaku78 (May 29, 2012)

I had a 7D for a year and ended up selling it for the 5D MkII...couldn't be happier with my purchase. As many have said, the image quality really is night and day. And in regards to the 5D MkII shortcomings, the AF is simple but I can still get great looking action shots of my 20 month old.

As for the 24-105 question, I think it's a great buy with the 5D kit and I love the lens for outdoor pics and parties using a flash. Combine it with a Canon 50mm 1.4/1.8 or Sigma 50mm 1.4 (amazing lens for the money) and you've got a nice little setup.


----------



## Axilrod (May 29, 2012)

The 5DII is still a huge jump from a T2i and a very capable camera. I know with all the 5DIII bashing going on here that it's easy to get the impression that the 5DII must just be a giant piece of crap if the 5DIII is that bad. But most people complaining about the 5DIII are complaining about the price (whether they want to admit it or not). 

Keep in mind people are still shooting with the 5D classic and getting awesome images, your buddy will be just fine with a 5DII.


----------



## pakosouthpark (May 29, 2012)

i think another question to add here is - will 5dmk ii drop down price this summer?? 
it was cheaper last xmas, i hope it gets to that price again! always a few to save and spend it on glass


----------



## dickgrafixstop (May 29, 2012)

Not only is it still viable, it may be a better option that the MkIII if he's not interested in video. The 
price difference in the two will buy a great lens (or two) or even a second body. Canon is seeming
to bend over backwards towards the video imaging crowd lately at the expense of the still shooter,
packing their offerings with (for me at least) unnecessary, unwanted and unused features that have 
to drive the price up.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2012)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Not only is it still viable, it may be a better option that the MkIII if he's not interested in video.



Imho it's exactly the other way around since the 5d2 runs magic lantern.


----------



## preppyak (May 29, 2012)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Not only is it still viable, it may be a better option that the MkIII if he's not interested in video. The
> price difference in the two will buy a great lens (or two) or even a second body. Canon is seeming
> to bend over backwards towards the video imaging crowd lately at the expense of the still shooter,
> packing their offerings with (for me at least) unnecessary, unwanted and unused features that have
> to drive the price up.


It cracks me up when I see this. The upgrades for video for the 5DIII were basically no moire, a choice of codecs, and a tiny bit more resolution. Everything else is a stills upgrade (since video doesn't use the 61pt AF, dedicated AF processor, the 6fps, etc). A video person probably wouldn't spend double the price for a 5DIII, where as an event shooter/wedding photog would. The 5dIII is basically a dream wedding camera, not a dream video camera.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the 5dII is excellent for its price point, especially if you can get it through Canon Loyalty for $1400+tax. Or through the various Ebay deals that have had it well below $2000. I have no problem shooting kayaking with my 60D (essentially the same as the 5D AF), I just know I won't always nail every shot. But the trade off will be you'll get great landscapes compared to the 7D, and more useable low-light. So unless you're doing more than 50% sports stuff, it's worth it.


----------



## NormanBates (May 29, 2012)

* 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.
* It seems like the 5D3 will get Magic Lantern too (soon).


----------



## preppyak (May 29, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.


Would you pay double the price for it? Id gladly spend a little more for it (think Nikon D800 v D800E), but not a $1500 premium for something I can largely handle with plugins. 

Just very different markets really. What the 5dIII serves is very different than the audience the 5dII served


----------



## tron (May 29, 2012)

It is a very viable option. Of course it always depends on what you want to photograph most. For example, instead of trying to find a 5DmkIII, I ordered a TS-E17mm


----------



## tron (May 29, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.
> * It seems like the 5D3 will get Magic Lantern too (soon).



The fact that Moire is totally absent makes me afraid of a more powerful AA filter which may be the culprit for what is considered as "bug" in Lightroom: Less sharpness. I can't stop from thinking that the fix in DPP was a conditional - applied for 5DmkIII cameras - sharpening.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * It seems like the 5D3 will get Magic Lantern too (soon).



Yes and no - it will run most likely run ml if the current devs keep developing (for free), but how would you predict "soon"? Even the prioritized 5d2 port isn't out of beta yet, I guess the 5d3 port will take at least a year, because right now it's at the "Hello, World" stage!


----------



## johle (May 29, 2012)

Just my two cents:

I upgraded to the 5D Mark II, from a 400D. All I can say is wow! I have the Sigma 50mm F1.4 and a Sigma 24-60 F2.8, and they are great with the 5D!  The deal-breaker for me was FF/ISO performance, and everything else that comes with that.

For me it was a lot of money (since I'm still a student!), but it was my first body updrade since I bought the 400D in 2006.

Sure, the 5D Mark III is better - but do I need it? No.

It's up to you in the end, but for me it was a VERY VIABLE option  And I'm loving it!

Some people complain about the AF, and well. In REALLY dark situations, like photos in clubs or similar, the AF cannot cope. However, the ISO performance is great in these situation... Solution: buy a flash to use the AF assist grid! I don't use the flash, but perfect focus  At least that is what I did... And for all other situations, the AF was fine for me. And If you want to do evening/night landscape photography, well... there is always the live-view and manual focus...

I only use center-point AF though...

Just my thoughts...  I hope you will be happy with your final choice!


----------



## skitron (May 29, 2012)

I bought a 5D2 at the end of last year during the dive-bomb pricing, and have been pleased with it since I managed my expectations with respect to the autofocus. Curiously, I find the outer points work pretty good with my Sigma 50 f/1.4 but not worth a darn with my 100L. So that was a pleasant surprise since I was expecting to not be able to use them at all. The IQ is as good as everyone says and as you see in samples.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 30, 2012)

my advice on the AF
Understand the system, know its limits and work within them 
on the 5D2 I pretty much stick to center point only

one cool AF setting i had my 5D2 set up as that the mk3 cant seem to be set up to do is
enable direct controller for af point selection so you move the joystick and the selected Af point moves, push it in and it goes to center. The part the mk3 cant do is push the top right back button AF selection button and it will go to area AF for if say you are shooting f8 and from the hip doing some street photography and let the camera select the AF then just puch the joystick in to go back to spot selection when you want its very fast and easy.

I guess the simplicity of the AF system of the mk2 is a strength in a way too. It is frustrating when moving from a more advanced system but if moving up from a rebel you will probably find the center point much more responsive than the rebel and the othe points not much different to that of the rebel.

And image quality is still awesome from these cameras that wont change


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 30, 2012)

+1

The 5d3 price difference is very difficult to justify for many shooters. Your friend might (probably will) find the 5d2 AF frustrating for sports, but for everything else, use focus / recompose and it's fine. Otherwise, get a D800. Switching via the used lens market really isn't as painful ($$) as people make it out to be.




NormanBates said:


> I definitely wouldn't consider the 5D3 right now, unless you desperately need the improved AF or the clean video
> personally, that's not enough for me to pay so much more ($3500 vs $2200), and therefore my decision right now is either 5D2, or switch over and get a D800
> 
> and given all this, in the end I'm just waiting to see if the 5D3 falls in price, as previous "losing models" have done (D700<5D2, 60D<D7000)
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6539.0


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> +1
> 
> The 5d3 price difference is very difficult to justify for many shooters. Your friend might (probably will) find the 5d2 AF frustrating for sports, but for everything else, use focus / recompose and it's fine. Otherwise, get a D800. Switching via the used lens market really isn't as painful ($$) as people make it out to be.



I think the friend might find the 4fps d800 frustrating for sports as well


----------



## justsomedude (Jun 1, 2012)

FWIW... I'm actually considering buying a refurb'ed 5D2 from the Canon store simply for compatibility with my collection of PocketWizard Flex units and my 580 and 430 flashes. The upgrade path for off-camera lighting, via the 600EX and ST-E3-RT is simply cost prohibitive (given the number of lights I use). Quite frankly, I'm a little baffled that Canon goes so far to cripple PocketWizard units on their new bodies. 

I understand they think they're protecting sales and proprietary tech, but let's face the facts - PocketWizard was first to the RF game, and they made it a viable solution years before Canon even considered it. It's time Canon approaches PocketWizard to develop a formal partnership (before you flame - I know it will never happen). So I'm happy waiting for a PW firmware upgrade, because I refuse to give Canon money for their 600EX system - as that would just support their arrogant approach to "innovation". 

In the meantime - a 5D2 will serve me just fine.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 1, 2012)

If what you ultimately need is FF and low light and sports is secondary, then the 5D II is still a great. Just because a newer model is out doesn't make it a bad body. Unless your friend is a pro sports photog, I would worry _too_ much about the AF. It's far from great, but still doable. You will get far fewer keepers that a 7D though.

Just to prove that you can shoot sports with bad af, the image below was shot with a 500D in AF servo.


----------



## well_dunno (Jun 1, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> my advice on the AF
> Understand the system, know its limits and work within them



knowing its limits... I could not agree more...

After all, even the equipment that is seen as worse have their optimum settings to deliver good results IMHO. People were able to take amazing photos for many decades without any of the fancy equipment we have today...

Cheers!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 2, 2012)

erakepio said:


> Hi All,
> 
> posting this on behalf of a colleague who does not have internet at the moment. However he wants to upgrade from his 550D to one of the xD range of cameras.
> 
> ...



For low ISO, tripod work the 5D2 is pretty much every bit as good as the 5D3 other than a few UI improvements.

The 5D3 doesn't have banding in deep shadows at very high iso, the 5D2 can, so for certain scenes the 5D3 shot might look at lot less ugly. The 5D3 also has about almost 2/3rds of a stop better SNR, not all that huge, but a bit noticeable.

5D3 has much higher fps and more AF options and speed, quicker response time, etc. for sports.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> erakepio said:
> 
> 
> > He does a lot of landscape, low light (high exposure), some sports photography.
> ...



The 5D2 AI Servo isn't THAT terrible. Terrible compared to 1 series for some circumstances but otherwise it does AI Servo better than any rebel, any xxD camera, and, IMO, overall, even better than the 7D which can get rather erratic at times for football and soccer. The 5D2 AI Servo can get a bit slow and wacky when your subject is close in though. For a somewhat more distant subjects it sometimes does as well as a 1D2. Not saying it is amazing or anything, but in the Canon world only the 1 series and the 5D3 do AI Servo any better.

It's trigger response time is a bit on the sluggish side compared to some xxD,7D,5D3, 1 series though and it's fps is very slow compared to xxD,7D,5D3, 1 series, it feels like a sloth crawling through molasses after handing the others right before it.

If you need to use AI Servo with something other than center point then it's pretty awful and 7D, 5D3 and 1 series are all vastly better (even some xxD are probably better then (if not very good at all themsevles)).


----------



## Fknbryce (Jun 3, 2012)

You really can't go wrong with either. But his needs for a camera are varied. if the 5d3 he can't justify, why not get the 5d2 and a 7d? he'd have an unbeatable combination.
on an unrelated note. these photos are beautiful david




davidbellissima said:


> I own the 5D Mk I, ii & iii camera bodies. The Mk I will be going to a new loving home shortly. They are all extremely capable cameras and while each have their well documented individual benefits, they all offer value. Especially the Mk i which is now dirt cheap on the used market. In the UK the cost of new Mk ii bodies is holding firm meaning used bodies are also still holding firm. The price differential between the Mk ii and Mk iii is too large for the release of the Mk iii to impact Mk ii prices, in my opinion.
> 
> Yesterday I was reminded of the fantastic quality of the Mk ii. I hadn't blogged a shoot I did last year with the Mk ii, and having been using the Mk iii for a couple of months now, these images just made me realise how fantastic the Mk ii is and I am more than happy for this to be my backup camera to the Mk iii. Here are some images:
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveQ (Jun 7, 2012)

5DII is still a great option. I have both the 5DII and the 7D, and for studio, landscapes, portraits, architecture, etc. my go-to camera is the 5DII. For sports, etc. I use the 7D. The IQ from the 5DII is superb.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > erakepio said:
> ...



The issue with the 7D is that the focus point is too big so careless pointing gets an OOF image (especially when pointing through gap in trees etc


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Lol 5d2 is a smooth-bore musket in relation to the near pin-point accuracy of my 7D. If you want good AF the 7D is your best bet unless the 5d3 AF or 1D series AF.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I dont think so - the focus point of the 7D is much bigger than that of the 5D2. Better AF maybe in terms of focussing and focus points - but the size of the focus point was most of the cause of 'soft focus' issue of the 7D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 8, 2012)

To update everyone on how "viable" this option is, I think I'm shooting enough stuff right now that I am going to buy the 5D Mark II as a third body. I really don't need any lenses right now, so it's a good investment for me. Now if it only had the AF and fps as the 1D Mark IV...........

The IQ is good enough for me as an owner of the Mark III and 1D Mark IV, so I'd so go for it!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I disagree, have you read the manual? There is the Precise single point selection that is tiny for precise AF on the 7D. Hasn't let me down and the 5D's AF has plenty of times.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Well my 5D2 blew away my 7D in a super incredibly low light indoor one shot focusing test and I trust it a little bit more in general for center point one shot and even for AI Servo if the subject isn't too close and center point with assists can be used, under quite a few lighting conditions.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think so - the focus point of the 7D is much bigger than that of the 5D2. Better AF maybe in terms of focussing and focus points - but the size of the focus point was most of the cause of 'soft focus' issue of the 7D
> ...



Point isn't much use for faster object shooting like sports and wildlife. I had no problem with the 5DII AF but there - horses for courses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 8, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Interesting, because I can use any of my AF points on the 7D in no light scenarios w\ assist beam and get sharp photos and shoot wide apertures not worrying too much about focus recompose. No need to worry about which AF point to use, as they're all excellent.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 8, 2012)

IMO the 5DmkII is a better camera than the MkIII. The high ISO on the MKIII is not that useful due to the drop in DR and compared to the D4/1DX level bodies, it just can't compete. Not to mention the MKII was already good enough for most people so those running to the MkIII are a minority or just do it because they like the safety net even if they will never use the extra range. 6 FPS is not really a big jump over the 4fps of the mkII so it doesn't break any speed records. And the video addresses moire but you could have done that with the mosaic filter.

Unless you need the new AF, I see not one reason to buy the mkIII as it just doesn't do that much better to justify the price over the prior version.


----------



## DaveQ (Jun 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

... there is the possibility of quoting only a part of a thread, you know :-o ? Otherwise people get confused, starting with you.



psolberg said:


> IMO the 5DmkII is a better camera than the MkIII. The high ISO on the MKIII is not that useful due to the drop in DR and compared to the D4/1DX level bodies, it just can't compete.



I just asked exactly this in another thread - can you point me to some review that says how exactly the 5d3 performs concerning dr drop w/ higher iso in comparison to the 5d2 (and maybe 1d)?


----------



## EOBeav (Jun 8, 2012)

Without looking at everybody's comments, I just bought a 5DmkII, after owning a Rebel for a few years, and couldn't be happier.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Without looking at everybody's comments, I just bought a 5DmkII, after owning a Rebel for a few years, and couldn't be happier.



+1 It is a good camera and gives top IQ


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2012)

DaveQ said:


> Interesting, because I can use any of my AF points on the 7D in no light scenarios w\ assist beam and get sharp photos and shoot wide apertures not worrying too much about focus recompose. No need to worry about which AF point to use, as they're all excellent.



well using assist beams is something completely different


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2012)

psolberg said:


> IMO the 5DmkII is a better camera than the MkIII. The high ISO on the MKIII is not that useful due to the drop in DR and compared to the D4/1DX level bodies, it just can't compete. Not to mention the MKII was already good enough for most people so those running to the MkIII are a minority or just do it because they like the safety net even if they will never use the extra range. 6 FPS is not really a big jump over the 4fps of the mkII so it doesn't break any speed records. And the video addresses moire but you could have done that with the mosaic filter.
> 
> Unless you need the new AF, I see not one reason to buy the mkIII as it just doesn't do that much better to justify the price over the prior version.



What high ISO DR drop compared to the 5D2? The 5D3 actually has slightly better DR at high iso than the 5D2 and the only cams that do better in that regard at the D3s (but with very low res so it looks worse overall at high iso) and D4 and perhaps 1DX. 

6fps isn't quite the 7-8fps you hope for but all the same it is a HUGE difference compared to 3.9fps. At 4fps you pretty much never ever get two key frames in most sports action sequences while with 6fps you sometimes do (at 8fps you almost always do) and sometimes is a lot better than never especially since it's not a really rare sometimes. It is a bit of a shame it didn't do the 6.9fps of the rumors though.

Swapping a moire filter in and out if you jump between video and stills is a royal pain and time waster and the 5D3 video has at least 1.5 stops better SNR if not more than the 5D3. It is a touch soft and it's ridiculous, beyond ridiculous they left out focus peaking, zebra stripes and pretty bad they didn't give it a 1.6x cropped mode, the sensor makes 1 .6x crop with no line skipping using 2x2 blocking like a C300 possible it would seem and no super zoom mode either.

The auto-updating custom functions, histogram that shows up under the sun so you can see where it ends, video/stills liveview toggle switch and other things make the UI noticeably better too.

The DR at low ISO is a bit of a sad joke though after all this time. Nikon gets better by like 2.7 stops and Canon actually gets like a fraction of a stop worse! It has worse per photosite read noise at low iso than anything they have made since like the 30D-era I think! That said it's not really any noticeably worse DR at low ISO than the 5D2, in the real world it's about a tie. It is a bit more color blind than the 5D2.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> and it's ridiculous, beyond ridiculous they left out focus peaking, zebra stripes



Magic Lantern does both as you probably know already. I guess the guys at Canon are using ml too because they cannot live with their own feature-less firmware. So if the ml devs implement it for free, why pay Canon devs :-o ?



EOBeav said:


> Without looking at everybody's comments, I just bought a 5DmkII, after owning a Rebel for a few years, and couldn't be happier.



I'll probably go the same way, Canon isn't likely to come up with a good 5d2 successor at the same price w/o cutting too many features from the 5d3. Maybe there won't be a 5d2 successor at all, that's why the 5d3 is the 5d3, right?

To many, the differences might matter only if you have competing photogs that exploit exactly the advantages the 5d3 has, or if you have been infected by Canon marketing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Magic Lantern does both as you probably know already. I guess the guys at Canon are using ml too because they cannot live with their own feature-less firmware. So if the ml devs implement it for free, why pay Canon devs :-o ?



Yeah but they forgot about the part where all the major DSLR video review sites slammed it and went meh. Had they not left it to ML ;D they might gotten some better press and more jumping off the shelves.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Magic Lantern does both as you probably know already. I guess the guys at Canon are using ml too because they cannot live with their own feature-less firmware. So if the ml devs implement it for free, why pay Canon devs :-o ?
> ...



Keep reminding us that the 5DII is rubbish and eventually we will forget that the D800 hasn't caught up with the 5DII yet


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 9, 2012)

You gave up your 1D Mark IV


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> You gave up your 1D Mark IV



Did I - I dont think so, definitely 2 x 1 series in today's bag


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You gave up your 1D Mark IV
> ...



I was obviously making a joke about your signature file


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



???


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I was obviously making a joke about your signature file



When I put my full inventory on the sig line I get flamed


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> When I put my full inventory on the sig line I get flamed



But if you don't you'll get flamed, too - nobody without a full frame body and a personal lens zoo could possibly have a valid opinion on anything, you 7d cheapo! ... on the other hand maybe it's clever not to be connected to ancient, dead-end aps-h technology


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > When I put my full inventory on the sig line I get flamed
> ...



I guess I can make a comment on anything other than the xxxD lines


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 10, 2012)

Oh. Well, I toned mine down too. At first I thougt it would make me look like I knew what I was doing, but then I realized everyone knew better and that I just looked like an idiot.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 10, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Oh. Well, I toned mine down too. At first I thougt it would make me look like I knew what I was doing, but then I realized everyone knew better and that I just looked like an idiot.



I wouldn't say a long gear list doesn't mean much either way except that for some reason you had the $$$ to get it. Getting every possible lens out there might mean you know what you do, but then again it might you don't. And with good professionals with little gear (but much addons like filters, light, ...) and rich amateurs who are lens collectors around, who's to tell who is who?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 10, 2012)

I find it very irritating when posts come in from people that have never owned kit that they are commenting about.

It is quite clear that all they are saying is some regurgitated 'fact' that they have read about on the web sometime.

The 5DII is getting these AF 'facts' stated about it - when those that have had extensive use of one know that using the centre AF point is the way to go - and then the 5D2 delivers top images - and yes even sports pictures if needed, albeit that the low fps is irritating - but hey, it is the same fps as the D800 and there are no murmours there. It is still one of the best low light bodies out there - just meter to the right and the image stays very, very good

The 5DII will always out IQ the 7D - I think it is an ideal entry level ff. It may not have the bells and whistles - it is a simple but very effective camera


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I find it very irritating when posts come in from people that have never owned kit that they are commenting about.
> 
> It is quite clear that all they are saying is some regurgitated 'fact' that they have read about on the web sometime.
> 
> ...



Excellent post! I actually did own the 5D Mark II and when I learned the AF issues, I never had a problem. I was consistently shooting sports and even trains going 65+ mph. All you had to do was use the center point in AI Servo Mode and maybe crop a bit in Photoshop or what have you. I do miss the 7D because it had extra reach and made it sort of like having double the lenses that I own. If I could shoot more photos I would definitely buy a 7D or a 5D Mark II again and use them in my current lineup. If you shoot in RAW and can use photo editing, the 5D Mark II and 7D produce top-notch images. If I had time to do nothing but shoot photos, believe me I'd have FOUR cameras in my kit!


----------



## markd61 (Jun 11, 2012)

The mkII was a huge leap over the (still splendid) 5D classic and I could justify buying it. I shot weddings, events and portraits in addition to my architectural and commercial work. The mkIII offers a nicer body and much better AF but at present a less compelling value proposition. I do say that low light AF is an issue but overall I am delighted to be able to get all I want in a steeply discounted mkII now that the mkIII is out.

That being said, I AM going to get a mkIII specifically because I am getting more low light event jobs that require the better AF.

For the hobbyist the mkII is the best deal out there. Money saved can go to lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2012)

markd61 said:


> The mkII was a huge leap over the (still splendid) 5D classic and I could justify buying it. I shot weddings, events and portraits in addition to my architectural and commercial work. The mkIII offers a nicer body and much better AF but at present a less compelling value proposition. I do say that low light AF is an issue but overall I am delighted to be able to get all I want in a steeply discounted mkII now that the mkIII is out.
> 
> That being said, I AM going to get a mkIII specifically because I am getting more low light event jobs that require the better AF.
> 
> For the hobbyist the mkII is the best deal out there. Money saved can go to lenses.



I Do Admit, The 5Dc is still producing the goods for me in 2012.

(My assistant in training BTW)


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 11, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I Do Admit, The 5Dc is still producing the goods for me in 2012.



The 5Dc is the only camera I regret selling. 

I used the 5Dc as my first DSLR ff camera and for about 18months, several weddings and christenings. Only just coming from film I was blown away at just how good the colours were (and still are). The 13mp and slow fps encouraged me to buy the 5DII. I used the 5DII for just over 2 years and got so many good images. The 5DII made way for my 1DS3 which I have really fallen for and is now my regular camera - the colour rendition of the 1DS3 is very close to that of the 5Dc - not surprising really as they come from the same era.

FF is quite addictive with the images it delivers, after 3 ff bodies I am still in there and loving it

Picture is from 1Ds3 with my 135 f/2 which I have had on all ff bodies. I think it is one of the great combinations, ff +135

Taken at f/2


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 13, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I Do Admit, The 5Dc is still producing the goods for me in 2012.
> ...



5Dc+135 F/2L is an utter stunner.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 13, 2012)

Great stuff guys! These really show that just because a camera is "old", it doesn't mean it's no good. I think too often people get wrapped around getting new tech thinking that the old is irrelevant. RLPhoto, I love your B&W's.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 13, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Great stuff guys! These really show that just because a camera is "old", it doesn't mean it's no good. I think too often people get wrapped around getting new tech thinking that the old is irrelevant. RLPhoto, I love your B&W's.



Totally agree


----------



## rpt (Jun 13, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff guys! These really show that just because a camera is "old", it doesn't mean it's no good. I think too often people get wrapped around getting new tech thinking that the old is irrelevant. RLPhoto, I love your B&W's.
> ...


+1 and +1
I love B&W. It gets the message across (provided you have one  ).

I wish I could find some folks who wanted to get rid of their "old cameras" here in India...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 14, 2012)

rather than sell my mk 2 I spent another $200 or so on a brightscreen for it
it make the VF sooo much better and when i am going to shoot a manual only lens thats the body I use now
the 5Dmk3 has a really nice big bright VF that is good for MF but the brightscreen in the mk2 with the old school split pea center is so fun for MF


----------



## Mark1 (Jun 14, 2012)

I've owned a 30D, 5D1 and now have a 5D2. Once you go full frame you will never look back - fact!

The 5D2 is a massive upgrade from the 5D1 in terms of functionality (live view, better LCD, customisable control, raw size control, the list is endless) but the 5D3 from what I am seeing is not such a quantum leap in technology or quality. I honestly could never justify the huge price difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 particularly as I have never had a single problem with the AF. 

Pound for pound, the 5D2 has to be the best value DSLR currently on the market. Buy one before they run out of stock!


----------



## rpt (Jun 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> rather than sell my mk 2 I spent another $200 or so on a brightscreen for it
> it make the VF sooo much better and when i am going to shoot a manual only lens thats the body I use now
> the 5Dmk3 has a really nice big bright VF that is good for MF but the brightscreen in the mk2 with the old school split pea center is so fun for MF


Why did they ever get rid of the split screen and annular ring of micro prisms that they had on the AE1? Were they smoking pot! I so miss the split center and the 5D3 has no way of putting that in


----------



## picturesbyme (Jun 14, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I find it very irritating when posts come in from people that have never owned kit that they are commenting about.
> 
> It is quite clear that all they are saying is some regurgitated 'fact' that they have read about on the web sometime.
> 
> ...




I thought I'm the only one who's bugged by that.... 

About the 5d2.. 
There was a time when it was the top. "THE" camera everyone was waiting for and talking about.. it produced endless amount of amazing photos all over the world.. so I don't really understand why would anyone think that it stopped being great... Of course I understand its certain limitations - AF for certain situations - but if it did all those amazing photos before I'm sure it's still capable now...
I shot these (http://atlanticpicture.com/p408912026/h1556fb5d#h1556fb5d) a couple days ago and I'm very happy with mine... but what do I know, I still like my 60D too )


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

rpt said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > D_Rochat said:
> ...



Thank you. These were all taken @ f/2 @ 800 ISO on the 5Dc And edited on my aging windows XP pro system. None of this equipment is really up to date. Lol.


----------



## vbi (Jun 14, 2012)

For years the 5D2 was the camera to aspire to, and even now with the latest releases it is still the camera to compare the very best with, so that still makes it an excellent camera to use.

Quite honestly, I don't need the improved AF of the 5D3. It would be nice to have, and my inner techno-geek would love to have the latest, greatest shiny toy, but will it improve the AF success rate of my 5D2 which is about 99% in a studio? Not really.

Do I need more megapixels? Not really.

Do I need to buy new lenses, new radio triggers? Not really.

For someone moving to FF the 5D2 offers the best value for money.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 14, 2012)

The 5DII is an FF camera and as such it offers many ways to improve your skills as a photographer. I do like crop bodies, but it is not the same. Since owning a 5DII, looking through the viewfinder of a crop body gives me the feeling that something's missing. In terms of RAW IQ, the 5DII at least performs equally well as the 5DIII (except for higher ISO). The attached image may give a slight impression of the fact that the 5DII is not basically incapable of taking photos of fastly moving objects. This photo of a home-flying snipe was taking when dusk had already started to settle (ISO 640, f/8, 1/1000, 1.4 Kenko TC, 70-200 f/4 L IS, very little post-processing). It's the best out of three shots taken.


----------



## Chopper (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm about to make the move to FF and thanks to this post, it will be the 5D MKII 24-105 kit over the 5D MKIII body only and still have money left over. I've been tossing it up over the last few weeks regarding which option to get but as I was reminded over and over again reading the 7 pages of this topic, I will probably not need the extra FPS and AF as my main interest is in landscape and portraits. 

Thanks for convincing me to make the right choice based on what I like to shoot rather than how old the technology may or may not be


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2012)

Chopper said:


> I'm about to make the move to FF and thanks to this post, it will be the 5D MKII 24-105 kit over the 5D MKIII body only and still have money left over. I've been tossing it up over the last few weeks regarding which option to get but as I was reminded over and over again reading the 7 pages of this topic, I will probably not need the extra FPS and AF as my main interest is in landscape and portraits.
> 
> Thanks for convincing me to make the right choice based on what I like to shoot rather than how old the technology may or may not be



I had the camera for a long time. You won't be disappointed. As I mentioned many times and people are getting tired of reading, I really really regret selling that when I bought the 5D Mark III. I really wish I had kept it now.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Chopper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm about to make the move to FF and thanks to this post, it will be the 5D MKII 24-105 kit over the 5D MKIII body only and still have money left over. I've been tossing it up over the last few weeks regarding which option to get but as I was reminded over and over again reading the 7 pages of this topic, I will probably not need the extra FPS and AF as my main interest is in landscape and portraits.
> ...



I do have the 5D Mark II and I am very satisifed. I will not upgrade to 5D mark III for the following reasons:

1st: price. It is too expensive for what it offers. It is not Value for money.
With less money I bought a TS-E 17mm and I am very happy with it 

2nd: AA filter? I am afraid 5D Mark III is softer than 5D Mark II due to more powerful AA filter. It is very strange that Canon had to "fix" DPP and the 5DIII was softer when other applications were used (for example Lightroom). To me this screems as softness unless someone with internal information explains.

3rd: They crippled it on purpose. With a 17 times more powerful processor they could make it 7 or 8 fps.

4. Non easily replaceable screen.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2012)

tron said:


> 3rd: They crippled it on purpose. With a 17 times more powerful processor they could make it 7 or 8 fps.



Don't worry, in 3 years they might release a firmware upgrade like on the 7d enabling the faster fps


----------

