# Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII



## MrKorney (Mar 23, 2013)

I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop. 
I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot. People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large). Thanks for the help!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 24, 2013)

I've used a 40D, a 5D1, a 5D2, a 5D3 and a 1Ds2 in the studio (all paid advertising work) and their ain't much difference. Your obsessing over something that isn't important.

If you are taking a Workshop, shoot it the way they are teaching it. You may find that f/8 gives you a better photo than f/1.4.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 24, 2013)

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.

...except, of course, for price.

So, if price isn't a factor -- and you seem to be indicating that it's not -- then it's a no-brainer.

That writ, studio work, where, presumably, you're shooting with well-balanced strobes at ISO 100 and f/8 - f/11, the only time you'll see a difference with any camera on the market today is when printing on a machine that's too big to sit on a desktop (or when pixel peeping). Resolution isn't a factor at desktop printer sizes, and dynamic range is a moot point when you can push a lever or position a reflector or whatever to tame the light to whatever it needs to be. Noise, of course, is also a non-factor at ISO 100. Keep going down the list and, again, unless you're printing big, only ergonomics really differentiates a Rebel with a kit lens from a 1Dx with L glass in the studio.

(Again, just to be clear: I'm assuming studio strobes in typical use and 13" x 19" prints and smaller, no significant cropping, _etc., etc., etc._ Atypical use of strobes, window light, all sorts of other factors could easily skew the equation all sorts of ways.)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## vbi (Mar 24, 2013)

IMHO the 5D2 has better micro contrast than the 5D3 but there's no arguing with the other improvements on the 5D3


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

For studio use, get the 5D MK II. Any improvements on the 5D MK III really do not help much in a studio.
Don't worry about AA Filters, there is not enough difference to worry about them.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 24, 2013)

I have both and the difference is studio shooting is invisible. The greatest difference is in the subjective feel and handling. 
The great advantage of the studio is being able to control conditions so the image will look its best despite the limitations of the camera.


----------



## hyles (Mar 24, 2013)

I would go for the mkII and buy together a specific lens, like ts-e 90 or a 100 macro .
If you don't need the lens, i would the same go with the MKII unless you need to use the camera for other application. 
The AF is not going to be important, i would use live view, all the same i would use the EG-S focusing screen that lets you see better focus accuracy and that it is not avalaible for the MKIII. 
Diego


----------



## M.ST (Mar 24, 2013)

I prefer the 5D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark III for studio work.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 24, 2013)

I do little in the way of studio work, but the MkIII does come into its own if it is a fast moving shoot. If you have the time to focus manually (especially at wide apertures), then there is no difference. but if you have to react quickly, then the AF of the MkIII is invaluable, due to the speed and accuracy of the AF system and also the number of points, which adds flexibility on placement.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 24, 2013)

is the shoot going to involve fabrics? the 5dmk3 performs better in controlling moire in this situation


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Mar 24, 2013)

go for the mk II and spoil yourself with a new lens.
And in all honesty, both are going to deliver amazing quality shots. It won't make a difference if you don't know how to use either.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.
> 
> ...except, of course, for price.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## hyles (Mar 24, 2013)

I would actually think about 6D, it's wi-fi function may be quite usefull in studio work.
Diego


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2013)

Doesn't matter. If anything I'd prefer the MK3 so I don't have I recompose so much.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2013)

the image quality will be the same.

so for me there was no need to buy the 5D MK3.


----------



## Badger (Mar 24, 2013)

It sounds like if price isn't a factor. If it isn't, why should he/she buy a MKII? I can't think of any real reason why not to get a MKIII.


----------



## agierke (Mar 24, 2013)

the 5d3's focusing system could play a part depending on what you are shooting. if its still life then no big deal. if its people then the Mrk2's unreliable focus points off center could become frustrating. you can reliable use focus points off center on the 5d3.

also, after this workshop what kinds of uses will you be needing for this new camera? chances are, if your interests are diverse, the Mrk3 will be more versatile and useful in almost any circumstance. if you have the money...get the camera that offers you the most.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 25, 2013)

MrKorney said:


> I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop.
> I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot. People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large). Thanks for the help!



You're seriously mistaken. The 5D Mark III has a much weaker AA filter with much more advanced technology that leads to around 13% more resolution JUST from the better AA filter. Also the highlight and shadow room are much better on the 5D Mark III.

Get the 5D Mark III, it's no question, at all.


----------



## Grumbaki (Mar 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Doesn't matter. If anything I'd prefer the MK3 so I don't have I recompose so much.



+1

Probably the most overlooked benefit of the 5d3. Crucial when working at extreme low f.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 26, 2013)

i upgraded my 5DII to 5DIII.
I find many more keepers with the 5DIII. 
Even in the studio you will have better shot at capturing that perfect moment.

I think the IQ of 5DIII is noticeably better than 5DII in every situation.


----------



## LewisShermer (Mar 26, 2013)

if it's product and you do quite a bit in post anyway then there's been no significant change in quality since the 1DsIII and the 5DII. I still use the 1DsIII for static stuff (only tethered) and the 5DIII for models (un-tethered). as long as your lighting and manual focussing is up to par and you know how to use DOF appropriately it doesn't matter what you're using.

On a side note: I hate using the 1Dsiii outside of the studio. I hate using the 5Diii tethered for product. 1st world problems, eh?


----------



## MrKorney (Mar 26, 2013)

Sorry for not being clearer, what I was saying in my original post is I already have both a mk II and III and was wondering if there was a better one for studio.... I ended up taking the mk III which proved to be the right choice cause since it was a workshop we were having to take turns using the strobes; while I wasn't using the stobes (which had the model lights turned on) I pulled out my 50 and 85 1.2's and did some shallow dof shots which would have been a lot more difficult with the mk II since I would have been recomposing a lot more. So it looks like the AF does need to be taken into consideration even for studio.


----------

