# I'm getting impatient for the new 5D 4.



## JC (Dec 17, 2014)

Ugh.

I am new here and have only a Powershot G6 which is a decade old now... 

I am about to buy my first FF DSLR and I must admit I am pretty overwhelmed at the whole Nikon vs Canon thing and yet despite many saying to go with Nikon, I really would like to go with Canon but I don't really fancy forking out 2K euros on a camera that is largely considered old tech, despite the fact I would be over the moon to have such a camera.

I am thinking of holding out until Canon announce the 5D Mark IV but at this point, March announcement (or any announcement) seems to be rumour only.

I have no DSLR and yet I do not want to spend on a body like the 700D, 70D, 7D, 6D etc etc to get started, I just don't want to spend 500-1k on a camera I will want to upgrade from in a years time, so I want to go full frame and buy the best camera I can afford and right now I am very tempted to go either Nikon D810 or D750 but I would much rather wait for the new Canon but what the heck is going on with them? No Photokina other than the 7D 2 and despite the run up to Christmas, still no official announcement on a new FF from Canon.

I will have the money next week and I just do not know if I will be able to hold out for the new 5D, sure, it may only be a few months away but the chances are it will not ship until June or something ridiculous and I probably would not get my hands on one until summer.

Should I just go for the 5D Mark lll and be done with it?

I don't like how Nikon seem to be pushing out a new camera every other week (OK, maybe not that many) but their camera's look ugly and I have a problem with the green tint to their images, also I do not like that their menu systems are hard to learn and the D810 has no custom banks, that sucks... but what I DO like is that they have better DR and are sharper, seemingly the D750 is a better camera than the 5D Mark lll now so it kinda makes little sense to plonk 2k on a camera that is now considered by many to be old.

Come on Canon, I have the money next week and yet I am forced to hang onto it until I either cave and go Nikon or buy a 5D Mark lll and be satisfied with my choice... personally, I think I would rather go Nikon and get a good body rather than pay that much money for the 5D Mark lll... 

Is there anyone else in this situation? Whilst Nikon, Sony and Fuji are putting out more and more great cameras, still there is nothing for the Canon user other than the 7D Mark ll which doesn't appeal to me because I want to go full frame and I won't be shooting sports or wildlife anyway.

The wait is getting old, even an official announcement at this point would probably be enough for me to hang on but right now the wait is getting really old and I am not sure if I even want to wait much longer although I do think that Canon will have to release a seriously kick ass camera to stay in the game what with what Nikon and Sony are putting out there these days... 

Come on Canon, where are you?

They must be losing a shed load of business to the competition right now.


----------



## martti (Dec 17, 2014)

Get the 5DIII and go shoot!


----------



## Khalai (Dec 17, 2014)

JC said:


> Is there anyone else in this situation? Whilst Nikon, Sony and Fuji are putting out more and more great cameras, still there is nothing for the Canon user other than the 7D Mark ll which doesn't appeal to me because I want to go full frame and I won't be shooting sports or wildlife anyway.



What's wrong with 5D3 or better yet with 6D (especially if you're not shooting sports/wildlife)? Those two are high quality tools which get the job done as easily as D810 or D750 unless you push them in very extreme and very specific situations.

I was in a similar situation at the beginning of 2014. I was very unsure about going for 6D or going full-blast with 5D3. Since I do photography as a hobby and not for money (just now and then) I opted for 6D and never regretted that decision (coming from 450D and later upgraded to 7D).

If you want to stay with Canon (for whatever reason), either 6D or 5D3 are very capable cameras. But since you're not locked-in with variety of L-lenses, you won't go wrong with D610, D750 or D810 either. Purely a choice of "what suits your needs and wishes the best."


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

You don't like how Nikon seem to he pushing out a camera evert other week, yet you're complaining that Canon aren't playing that game?

Buy a 5D3 or a D750, whichever you buy will be a great camera.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 17, 2014)

What are you even shooting?

Pick up a 5D MK II, you can probably get a decent shape one for $1200, it still takes great pictures, is full frame if/and the 5D MK IV gets announced in the next quarter or so, you sell of the 5D MK II, maybe take a $100 - $150 hit or so, you will be more familiar with the 5D and easier to step in.

As well, what if the 5D MK IV is a $3500 - $4000 camera? are you prepared for possibly those prices. 

Cameras are an expense, not an investment. You buy wisely, you have a lower expense. I would rather be shooting for 3 - 5 months for $20 - $30 a month on a full frame than just waitinfg


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2014)

1. You don't like Canon because they don't release new models, not often enough
2. You don't like Nikon because they release TOO often
3. You don't have money on hand to buy your 1st FF yet

Q: What is your plan with lenses? Can't photograph without lens


----------



## Dukinald (Dec 17, 2014)

Seems you are just starting out. 
Just a reminder, at this point, you are just not buying a camera body. You are in a position to choose a "camera system" - which is good for you. 

Also, like wat Dylan said, what are your plans about lenses ? Goes with the system thing


----------



## JC (Dec 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 1. You don't like Canon because they don't release new models, not often enough
> 2. You don't like Nikon because they release TOO often
> 3. You don't have money on hand to buy your 1st FF yet
> 
> Q: What is your plan with lenses? Can't photograph without lens



I do have the money, just waiting for a cheque to clear...

I am planning on buying the 24-70mm 2.8 to get me started, then will grab an 85mm and a 70-200mm when I get the hang of what I am doing... I am in no rush to have a selection of lenses, one or two for the first 6 months will be enough.

I am just saying, compared to Nikon, Canon are way slow at getting the new 5D 4 out, I like that they are not like Nikon and are rushing it but come on, it's been a long time now, I think many expected an announcement at Photokina at least but nada... and it's almost 2015 now.

I might grab the 5D Mark lll, it will probably far exceed my current needs anyway and will prove to be a great back up camera one day if I get the 5D Mark IV at a much later date... I just would have preferred to have gone 5D Mark 4 and yet with all these rumours... who really knows when it will be out?

It's due, that much I do know... it's possible I may just go D750 but like I say, Canon 5D 4 would have been my first choice without a doubt.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 17, 2014)

When the Canon 5D4 comes out, won't you be concerned about whether to wait for the 5D5?

There will always be a newer model to wait for. Buy the camera you want, that you can afford, now. 
Start shooting with it and then start building your glass kit. 

If you are just starting out, like it sounds, then a 5D, 5D2 will still be plenty of camera to shoot. 

Your experience will influence you photography much more than whether you buy a 5D2 or 5D3. 

Any of the Canon FF cameras are good cameras. Don't fall in to the trap of agonizing over tiny details about what may or may not be "best". 

To make an analogy with cars. It does not matter whether a Ferrari or a Porche is better when I am driving it. Both cars' capabilities far exceed my capabilities as a driver. Now if I were racing for 30 years, then my skill could appreciate the differences between the two cars. I find the same applies to photography.

I am still the bottle-neck in my photography flow. If you are starting out in "serious" photography, any of the Canon FF cameras (as well as some of their crop cameras) will be very good for your purposes. Let's be honest, Canon makes pretty good cameras. 

If you want a Canon, buy a Canon. 

If you want a Nikon, buy a Nikon

But playing one off the other is folly. 

Good luck with your decision. 

But make it and start shootin. You WILL buy another camera body some day so don't worry about buying the ultimate body now. The only decision that is difficult to change is which system you choose. But the good news is that both Canon and Nikon (and Pentax and Sony and ...) make good cameras these days... often with capabilities far in excess of what the photographer may have. ;D


----------



## LewisShermer (Dec 17, 2014)

Etc...

If you've only got a powershot and no lenses a 5Diii will be far beyond your wildest expectations. If you can afford that then go for it. You'll need to spend a hell of a lot on lenses though to get the best out of it. sticking with a 28-105 kit lens, although an L lens, will get you nowhere.

There is actually a massive difference in image quality between the 5Dii and 5Diii (as there is between a 7D and a 60D). A couple of years ago Canon seemed to do a tweak that gave the sensor a more film like quality that is apparent on the 5Diii, 6D, 60D, 7Dii (I've not shot with the 550 or above in the xxx range nor the xxxx ranges).

You'll need lenses more than a 5Div ( I can't see them stepping up anything other than MP and maybe some DR but if you expose correctly I don't see why anyone would need more than 8 stops or whatever it is)

Obviously only owning a powershot and not a SLR/DSLR you wont really understand how much control you'll have with lenses, especially primes, with depth of field. The kit lens (24-105mm f4) is kinda ok at landscapes, it's kinda ok at portraits, it's kinda ok at events (depending on your lighting and flash... remember you'll have no onboard shitty flash so you'll probably need one of those too)

The ISO on a 5Diii is useable to 3200 in a professional capacity (if you're as strict on quality control as I am) but I guess the 5Div might have a stop or so improvements there (but until it's released it's all hearsay and conjecture)

You could go with the 6D (which reputedly has better high ISO performance) but you'll lack the focussing options and be limited in that way) but I find it to be too small and the menu system & buttons aren't too great...

It's actually taken me yeeeaaaaarrrrrsssss to figure out what my favourite and most useful lenses are for my style, it might take you just as long so get started ASAP with the lens collection. An insider tip is the sigma 35mm Art... but shhhhhhhh


----------



## agierke (Dec 17, 2014)

i wouldnt be shocked if we dont see a 5d4 next year at all. there will be a new camera released next year but i dont see any reason it will be an update to a still very relevant 5d3. 

i know this is a rumors site and the lure to come to this site is to talk about new stuff coming but i have a feeling that upgrade cycles are going to be longer than we have seen in the past. the market is not what it used to be even 10 years ago. there has been a shift in the consumer market away from point and shoots and the professional market is pretty well saturated. i know i personally am feeling upgrade fatigue...i dont care much for what a potential 5d4 may be or when it is even coming as i dont want to replace my camera a mere 3 years after i bought it. especially when it still is a top performer for everything i could possibly want it to do.

the 5d3 is by no means an "old" camera...thats a ridiculous notion. i can easily see myself shooting with it for another 5 years + without having any want for additional performance.

wait for the next best thing....you'll be shooting on that powershot for a loooong time.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> What are you even shooting?
> 
> Pick up a 5D MK II, you can probably get a decent shape one for $1200, it still takes great pictures, is full frame if/and the 5D MK IV gets announced in the next quarter or so, you sell of the 5D MK II, maybe take a $100 - $150 hit or so, you will be more familiar with the 5D and easier to step in.
> 
> ...



So true


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 17, 2014)

The ugly truth is that photography is an expensive hobby. If you are not ready to spend at least a few thousand dollars, you don't have to read any further and you should stop spending time on this forum. And forget about what brand to choose from. They are all expensive. If you are on a budget get a canon eos m and be happy. The eos m is lightyears better than your g6.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 17, 2014)

In the long run most of your money will be in lenses. There will be times when you will want a second body when swapping lenses is impractical. Buy a used full frame body for now and a lens or two and get on with it. I have some great shots with my 5D Classic and one of Canon's older primes (300mm f/4 IS). Quit worrying about your 5D IV or whatever whizbang body is coming out next. 3D1 ?


----------



## martti (Dec 17, 2014)

5DIII has way better focusing system than the 5DII. You will get better pictures with the III right away.
Did you go and try what the Nikons and the Canons feel like?
I really like the Nikon feel and the way their DSLRs are designed.
Only that I have had EOS lenses since the EOS5 so I did not want to change the system.
I nearly never use the flash but the new EX flash system seems highly advanced.
The recent Canon lenses are excellent and the old EFs from previous decades still quite OK.

Now here's what you do: Flip a coin. Heads Nikon, tails Canon. If you feel that you cannot do that, you must have a preference you are not conscious of and you have to figure out what it is. Go with your heart.

And then go and take pictures and read the manual(s) and take some more pictures etc.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 17, 2014)

martti said:


> 5DIII has way better focusing system than the 5DII. You will get better pictures with the III right away.



Not necessarily. Yes, the focusing system is more advanced on the 5D MK III, but like Tony Northrup showed, if you don't know how to really use the AF system, you can get poor results.

There is also a $2K or close to it difference between a 5D MK II and a 5D MK III 

The OP has not told us what they are shooting, but if they do not need advanced tracking, then the AF on the 5D MK II may be fine as well as for the price of a 5D MK III the OP could get a 5D MK II and a 70-200 F/2.8 IS II, or pretty close to it. 

And again, if their heart is for the 5D MK IV you will save far more money on the depreciation of a 5D MK II in the next 6 months than you will on 5D MK III.

Heck, if they do the right amount of hunting and show some patience they could possibly even MAKE money on the resale of a 5D MK II after they have 5 months of use which is a lot harder to do with a 5D MK III with the potential announcement of a 5D MK IV


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 17, 2014)

Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DII?! Since when??

Yes the 5DIII has improvements across all features (mostly the focusing system), but I don't know if image quality is really one that is massively changed. Used right, the 5DII has fantastic image quality.


----------



## seamonster (Dec 17, 2014)

IQ no, but the (at least) one solid extra stop of usable ISO over the MKII is nice. Mind blowing in fact, if you're coming from last gen 18MP sensors of the 7D, etc. 

Seriously, soon enough all this talk of "you need f/2.8 to stop motion" is going the way of the dodo. Sure for bokeh but no longer to keep shutter speeds high. Just crank up the ISO and fit a cheaper, lighter f/4 lens!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2014)

seamonster said:


> Seriously, soon enough all this talk of "you need f/2.8 to stop motion" is going the way of the dodo.



No, it won't. In times of the original 5d1, you needed f2.8 to stop motion. In times of the 5d2, you needed f2.8 to stop motion. In times of the 5d3., you need f2.8 to stop motion. In times of the 5d4, you will need f2.8 to stop motion. Get the picture?



pdirestajr said:


> Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DII?! Since when?



Who said anything about massive? But it's significant: The 5d2's images respond not as well to denoising, and the noise pattern is visually more disturbing. Then there's a slight increase in snr, and some less banding (while not at 6d or 1dx level).

But if used properly, this won't matter as you can create visually stunning images with the ff 5d2 - there's no real need for the 5d3 features if you shoot the 5d2 with the purpose in mind it was designed for.


----------



## martti (Dec 18, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DII?! Since when??
> 
> Yes the 5DIII has improvements across all features (mostly the focusing system), but I don't know if image quality is really one that is massively changed. Used right, the 5DII has fantastic image quality.



Of course the picture quality on the 5D II is very good still. Good enough for most purposes.
It is just that with the 5DIII the focusing system was so much better that the amount of keepers just went up especially if we are talking about moving subjects. The high ISO is much less noisy as well. There will not be any observable differences in studio shots or tripod sceneries. Once the lights go low and people start moving the 5DIII really shines over its older brother. 

I experienced this very clearly when shooting in a party and a friend of mine (having drank nearly enough) passed me his 5DIII with a 24mm L on it. Do I have to say more?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2014)

Be wary of the hype. You don't always hear about the shortcomings that make owning and using a camera pleasant.

I bought a D800 along with some high end Nikon lenses. I tethered my 5D MK II using live view while attached to my pc a lot, but its a bad joke with Nikon cameras. Manual focusing is difficult due to the delayed response, and the image resolution is so poor as to make manual focus using tethering to a 24 inch monitor useless. Then, to make matters worse, you have to pay a big price for software that Canon provides free. My 24-70 f/2.8G had excessive CA's at the edges, LR could not remove it all. (I later found out this is normal).

If you are thinking of using a D800E as a wedding camera, skip it. The moiré can be horrible for lace dresses and pin stripe suits. I haven't seen many reports about the D810 yet, but it is apparently better in that regard.

On the other hand, A D800E (D810) is great when used for landscape where high resolution is very desirable. Its good for most general outdoor use. You will need to learn to be very careful in order to get all the resolution possible, just persist and learn. Casual photographers who just want to point and shoot often sell their camera out of frustration.


----------



## martti (Dec 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Be wary of the hype. You don't always hear about the shortcomings that make owning and using a camera pleasant.
> 
> I bought a D800 along with some high end Nikon lenses. I tethered my 5D MK II using live view while attached to my pc a lot, but its a bad joke with Nikon cameras. Manual focusing is difficult due to the delayed response, and the image resolution is so poor as to make manual focus using tethering to a 24 inch monitor useless. Then, to make matters worse, you have to pay a big price for software that Canon provides free. My 24-70 f/2.8G had excessive CA's at the edges, LR could not remove it all. (I later found out this is normal).
> 
> ...



Now that was info that does not show up in the (paid?) reviews.
The most valuable point you made was about learning. Technicalities one thing, taming and framing your subjects another. Nice posting from a pro! Thank you.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 18, 2014)

Hi JC. 
I'm having trouble getting to grips with your two contradictory statements, as in you haven't felt the need to upgrade your decade old P&S until now, but feel that you will outgrow a far more complex and capable DSLR in a year or so?
Any one of the cameras you have compared should provide you a lifetime of fantastic images based on how long it took to outgrow a G6! As others have said, waiting is a long wait for the next greatest thing since bread came sliced! 
Others may prove me wrong here, but it seems that the incremental improvements between versions are getting smaller, perhaps with the exception of the 7DII. 

Good luck choosing. 

Cheers, Graham. 




JC said:


> I am new here and have only a Powershot G6 which is a decade old now...
> 
> I have no DSLR and yet I do not want to spend on a body like the 700D, 70D, 7D, 6D etc etc to get started, I just don't want to spend 500-1k on a camera I will want to upgrade from in a years time,


----------



## Besisika (Dec 18, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi JC.
> I'm having trouble getting to grips with your two contradictory statements, as in you haven't felt the need to upgrade your decade old P&S until now, but feel that you will outgrow a far more complex and capable DSLR in a year or so?
> Any one of the cameras you have compared should provide you a lifetime of fantastic images based on how long it took to outgrow a G6! As others have said, waiting is a long wait for the next greatest thing since bread came sliced!
> Others may prove me wrong here, but it seems that the incremental improvements between versions are getting smaller, perhaps with the exception of the 7DII.
> ...


Well said!

Coming from a P&S to a full frame (regardless of the model) you will enjoy discovering what a full frame can do.
Forget about having the best ever, that is just a headache: unnecessary debate. 
*Fun is in shooting and not in having the best gear.*
Buy a 5D MK III, a good lens and enjoy!
I moved from Ti1 to 5D III 2 or 3 years ago and discovered heaven.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 18, 2014)

LewisShermer said:


> An insider tip is the sigma 35mm Art... but shhhhhhhh



If I were starting over it would be the 5D3 + the 50mm Art, or if I had a bit more $$ the 70-200 L IS II.

Period.


----------



## eyeland (Dec 18, 2014)

@OP
Have you tried any of the cameras that you're considering?
Are you familiar with SLR cameras at all (be it analog og digital)?
Maybe you should consider trying a second hand rebel or 7D classic to start you off.
Then, you can start investing in lenses and the cheap body will teach you alot (especially about what you need and what you DON*T need)
There really is somewhat of a catch 22 when buying ones first SLR system.
That is, you REALLY don't know what you like/need/use/hate/love until you've tried it.
Like others have proposed, if you start with some second hand gear, you could start growing as a photographer and eventually, you can resell it without much loss.


----------



## Abn0021 (Dec 18, 2014)

Made an account just to reply to this thread.

You are wanting to move from a decade old P&S, to a top of the line FF DSLR? With intentions of getting a 24-70 2.8II, 85mm, and 70-200 soon? Are you serious?

What makes you think you are ready for this system? It's obvious you have no idea what your needs are. 

At what point was a P&S not enough, and in the matter of moments, a 5dmkIV is what you NEED? You are biting off more than you need. 

Grab a t3i and kit lens and start shooting already.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 18, 2014)

Abn0021 said:


> What makes you think you are ready for this system? It's obvious you have no idea what your needs are.



... on the other hand, if he's got the budget why not go for it? It's not like he couldn't sell the stuff on if he finds it too difficult to handle or to heavy to carry around. Even expensive usable cameras have a "P" for "professional" mode. Getting a nice sports car just for fun is worth 15+ 1dx systems.

Imho people enjoying themselves and getting top of the line gear is just fine, if Canon makes a healthy profit there's less reason for them to be would up tight when trickling down features to more affordable cameras.

Concerning "need": Nobody "needs" a 1dx, when used properly a good photog can cover all situations with a Rebel. It's just a matter of convenience and keeper rate in some "machinegun the wildlife" situations.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 18, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Can't photograph without lens



Not true. If you have a thing for taking pictures of more or less pure white/grey corner to corner, no lens is required.

If painters can do this and call it modern art, why not photographers?



To the OP, a few years ago, I was in your position. Right around the time that the d7000 came out for Nikon, the first rumors of the d800 popped up. I waited and waited and finally when it came out, I decided that it didn't have what I was looking for, so I got the Canon 5d3. What other people say about the age of the tech doesn't change one, monumentally important fact:

You have no idea if the Canon 5d4 will be worth the wait to you.

Maybe it will come out and you'll wish you'd have gotten the 5d3, or even a 5d2... or something that isn't a 5d at all.


----------



## slclick (Dec 18, 2014)

I am very thankful I was born early enough and engaged in photography in the film era so I wouldn't have ever jumped into this market with so many overwhelming choices! I do not mean that in a sarcastic or demeaning way, I am truly honest here. When digital did come about my body purchases were complete level ups. 300D>T2i>7D>5D3. 

Each of these moves came as I grew with my system and desired challenges and outcomes my previous bodies didn't allow. They also came at the advent of each next level of technological advancement. I moved with the times. But to come into the DSLR world fresh these days, wielding enough cash to step up to the highest model without a foundation in shooting must be both exciting and daunting. 

Buy what you want! 

Enjoy, but there's a couple caveats here...unless you have an eye for the craft, the passion and a creative soul-the gear no matter how much you spend won't make your photographs any better without it.

Plus, the better model you purchase, the more convoluted the menus and features, so RTFM!


----------



## Besisika (Dec 18, 2014)

Abn0021 said:


> Made an account just to reply to this thread.
> 
> You are wanting to move from a decade old P&S, to a top of the line FF DSLR? With intentions of getting a 24-70 2.8II, 85mm, and 70-200 soon? Are you serious?
> 
> ...


_Made an account just to reply to this thread._
Agree, this has been the most fun to read so far. I understand if you couldn't stand. But please stick around, don't go away.

_Grab a t3i and kit lens and start shooting already._
Agree again, fun is in shooting.

_Are you serious?_
Actually, he might be serious.

You just retired, and would have more time.
You just won the lottery.
Your just married a reach guy.
Your kid just got a high-paid job.
Money is no longer an issue - yes I would be serious. That's why he was asking.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 18, 2014)

JC said:


> Ugh.
> 
> I am new here and have only a Powershot G6 which is a decade old now...
> 
> I am about to buy my first FF DSLR and I must admit I am pretty overwhelmed at the whole Nikon vs Canon thing and yet despite many saying to go with Nikon, I really would like to go with Canon but I don't really fancy forking out 2K euros on a camera that is largely considered old tech, despite the fact I would be over the moon to have such a camera.




I remember the same kind of discussions going on before the announcement of the Mark III in various places. Really "old tech"? I frankly don't expect anything coming in a Mark IV that will be that earth-shattering. Unless there is some specific feature that it is an absolute game changer I don't see the need to wait for something that may come months from now - and then turn out to be a disappointment of sorts.

I am still happily on my Mark II and never saw a valid reason to upgrade. I took a Mark III to shoots and couldn't tell the difference in the results. The AF is superior on the Mark III but that to me has not been a reason to shell out the extra money for a Mark III body. And if the Mark II breaks tomorrow I'll go get a Mark III independent of potential release dates for a Mark IV (or whatever Canon is planning to do).

Think of all the pictures you could be taking between now and, say, next Summer. Plus I'd always shell out the extra cash on the lenses first before considering the latest and greatest body.


----------



## sanj (Dec 19, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> seamonster said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, soon enough all this talk of "you need f/2.8 to stop motion" is going the way of the dodo.
> ...



If the subject moves relatively fast you need 1/250 shutter. If it movies fast you need 1/1000 and if it moves relatively really fast 1/4000. If you notice f stop is not mentioned here. Get the picture? 

So yes, as cameras become noise free at high ISO, f2.8 will not really be required to stop motion unless light drops considerably.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

sanj said:


> If the subject moves relatively fast you need 1/250 shutter. If it movies fast you need 1/1000 and if it moves relatively really fast 1/4000. If you notice f stop is not mentioned here. Get the picture?



No, I don't - that's because I shoot motion a lot. At first glance and to the layman, it might seem like the speed of motion is tied to the shutter speed, like fast, faster, fastest, totally fast.

But if you gain more experience, you'll realize even with only "fast" the pixel sharpness depends a lot on the shutter speed, so the tradeoff you need to make is iso value vs. pixel peeping. And of course it's about the speed of the object as projected on the sensor, so shooting a race car on the horizon doesn't need as fast shutter speed as shooting a turtle on macro distance.

That's why giving any absolute number (either f-stop or shutter speed) for a certain type of motion is a fallacy, it's about tradeoffs and the choice of max view/print size. Proper use of your gear depends on you understanding these connections. However, where would f2.8 lenses and 1/8000 camera sales be if everybody did :-o ?


----------



## LewisShermer (Dec 19, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DIII?! Since when??
> 
> Yes the 5DIII has improvements across all features (mostly the focusing system), but I don't know if image quality is really one that is massively changed. Used right, the 5DII has fantastic image quality.



The difference is absolutely HUUUUUUGE, it's crazy. I used to shoot weddings (just friends and relatives at first) on a 60D which had great image quality, I made a bit of money so bought a 7D for the bigger view in the eyepiece... unfortunately the image quality wasn't as good so I just used it as a back up to the 60D in the end. I then made enough to buy the 5Diii and a few quality lenses but it messed with my head using the same lenses on both a full frame and a crop so I bought a 5Dii as my back up... I went in blind and just used it as I would the 5Diii (a mistake on my part) and the images were an absolute wreck compared to the 5Diii. I guess it could be just like preferring Kodak film to Fuji though. VC to EC... those old choices we had to make back in the day...

I sold the 5Dii straight away and re-bought the 60D & I never want to look at a 7D again...


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 19, 2014)

LewisShermer said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DIII?! Since when??
> ...



I agree. White the 5D2 can produce excellent images, the 5D3 does have a huge IQ improvement. Couple this improvement in IQ (cleaner/sharper looking pixels, better ability to pull shadows, MUCH lower color noise at high ISO, better luminance noise at higher ISO) with a far superior AF system and your keeper rate is much much higher.


----------

