DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 5DMk2 or Mk3, which should I get?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/12/2012 04:29:44 PM · #1
In less than two months I will be uprgading to a much better camera than the t1i that I have right now. I'll be buying in the 5D family, however, I'm not sure if I should go with the Mk2 or Mk3. I know all the major difference like the higher ISO, FPS, better AF ect. But all of that will cost me around an extra $1500 after tax (I will be getting the 24-105mm regardless) So are all of those upgraded features worth it? I do all sorts of photography, not just one specific kind. I will also be keeping the t1i so I can take advantage of the crop factor when needed. My mentality is by buying the Mk3 I won't upgrade for a very long time. Thoughts?

Thanks
07/12/2012 04:38:11 PM · #2
Im going for the 5dii, the much improved AF won't benefit my style if shooting, I'm not paying the premium for it.
07/12/2012 04:40:56 PM · #3
I went through a similar decision recently, and ended up getting the 5D2 with the 24-105, and spending the difference between them on getting the 17-40 as well, along with various accessories (battery grip, etc). Both cameras are a huge leap from the T1i (which coincidently was also my previous), but IMO getting better lenses was much more important than the (relatively small) difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 - unless you know you're going to need the slightly higher resolution and faster AF & FPS, the 5D2 will be more than enough camera.
07/12/2012 05:01:59 PM · #4
The difference between the II and III is small enough that if you are considering keeping your t1 then you'll be just fine with the 5D2. That's not meant as a put down or anything. What I'm saying is the difference between the 5d2 and 5d3 is far smaller than between the 5d2 and the T1i and you are happy enough to keep shooting with your T1i.

Spending money on bodies is a terrible waste. Do it as infrequently and efficiently as possible. Spend the extra on good glass.

Message edited by author 2012-07-12 17:02:24.
07/12/2012 05:02:35 PM · #5
You are going to find that you are really going to need/want some good glass, and going with the Mk II will allow you another lens at least; perhaps a 70-200 would be an option. Whichever model you buy, it will serve you well for many years. I'm still using an original 5D that's approaching 7 years old, and I have no immediate plans to upgrade. I still love the results and that's what counts.
07/12/2012 05:02:50 PM · #6
Originally posted by Manic:

I went through a similar decision recently, and ended up getting the 5D2 with the 24-105, and spending the difference between them on getting the 17-40 as well, along with various accessories (battery grip, etc). Both cameras are a huge leap from the T1i (which coincidently was also my previous), but IMO getting better lenses was much more important than the (relatively small) difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 - unless you know you're going to need the slightly higher resolution and faster AF & FPS, the 5D2 will be more than enough camera.


' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/749.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/749.gif', '/') + 1) . ' manic makes a great point here from a financial point of view. I love my Mark II and can't justify upgrading to the Mark III, even with the improvements. With the current discounts on the old model you can get more "stuff" for the same money that you would pay for the Mark III.
07/12/2012 05:08:28 PM · #7
I've never touched a Mark III but Ken Rockwell's review concludes that it's worth the upgrade:

It's a huge improvement over the 5D Mark II due to the improvements from automatic color fringe correction, and the greatly improved power, depth-of-field and playback controls.

If I had the cash, I get the Mark III. Here's the link to the whole review: <LINK>

(No flaming please, I know that KR isn't everyone's favorite expert).
07/12/2012 06:16:21 PM · #8
Originally posted by kirbic:

You are going to find that you are really going to need/want some good glass, and going with the Mk II will allow you another lens at least; perhaps a 70-200 would be an option. Whichever model you buy, it will serve you well for many years. I'm still using an original 5D that's approaching 7 years old, and I have no immediate plans to upgrade. I still love the results and that's what counts.


Funny enough, I faced the OP's decision recently...

When it came down to it, and I carefully examined what I wanted and needed, it turned out that the 5D classic was still a perfect fit for my needs. Sure, I'll want something better in a few years, but I'm going to wait until that mkIII goes down to somewhere around $2500...

So, it may not work for you, or it may... But I'd say that you might want to objectively examine the 5D classic as a legitimate choice in your decision. FYI - I bought mine with a grip for $800 including shipping.

ETA: As to Kirbic's point about lenses, if you go to the mkII or III you will probably need some pretty sweet optics to really make that body shine... However, with this old 5D even my crappiest lenses look pretty good, heck I'm actually LOVING my 28-135 IS again.

Message edited by author 2012-07-12 18:55:15.
07/12/2012 07:21:56 PM · #9
Originally posted by nova:

I've never touched a Mark III but Ken Rockwell's review concludes that it's worth the upgrade

I reached the same conclusion. Given that I probably won't upgrade again for years, the difference in frame rate, AF, in-camera HDR and high ISO performance was worth the investment. I'm loving the ability to crank up ISO to 6400 or higher with relative impunity.
07/12/2012 08:55:46 PM · #10
i have the markiii. I m quite happy with it, but i was able to handle the cost between work and no family. I also pushed to commercialize my photography and end up using some of the fancier stuff and it helps justify the cost. So depends on your wants, needs, and responsibilities.
07/12/2012 09:24:47 PM · #11
I damaged my MKii that I had for more than 3 years. Long story short, I tried to buy another one (love the camera and didn't really think I needed anything more) ..... but the LCDs were bad in the new ones I tried ... three returns later, and just when I was about to give up and go back to using the broken camera the Mkiii became available so I upgraded. And I LOVE IT. Took me awhile to figure out the AF points. The ISO is a trip. The focusing is fast. I don't do video. It's expensive... if I didn't have lenses already I'd probably spend the extra money on good glass... but it is a worthwhile upgrade, to be sure.
07/13/2012 12:24:58 AM · #12
All very good points, I have a lot to think about but all of the advice helps. Especially those usuing 5Ds (which is almost all of you!) Thanks!
07/13/2012 02:08:18 AM · #13
Being that I feel I was in a somewhat similar position, and have somewhat been there done that, I'll explain what I did and what my thinking is now.
Originally, I bought a high end bridge camera (Fuji S9100), which at the time was pretty high up on the pole cost wise in regard to its class. It was a great camera, and it did me well, but I realized there were a ton of things that were really holding me back on it. Knowing these limitations, my next step was a DSLR (I don't really think this need is all that different from your need to go to full frame vs crop. If you feel you have to get a 5d, you know how and why your t1i is good and why it's bad, but full frame is the next level up the hierarchy, so that's where you're looking).
I exhaustively searched all camera brands, even perused the original 5D, Rebels, Sony Alphas, 40D, D40x, D90, D300, D3, and S5Pro. I wanted a body that would meet every need I had at the time, and one I could grow into. I wanted one that fit my hand well.

I also didn't want to start with the stock kit lenses, which receive heavy criticism for being so so. At the time, the 18-200 was blowing up and greatly lauded as a great everything lens (which, overall, it mostly is, but it doesn't do anything great).

I ended up with the D300, knowing I'd have it for quite some time, and thought I had done well getting the 18-200 with it as a package to save some money, since everybody said to buy better lenses.

It's only now that I really understand what everybody means by that. In a perfect world, you know what you'll shoot, and base your system in that from the ground up. But nobody does initially. The 18-200 worked well, but I was seeing relatively soft photos at certain focal lengths and f/stops, and the subject isolation was less than I was hoping for due to being a slow lens.

So, is it get a lasting body or get glass? I got a body that I knew would last, but I wish the money that I spent on the 18-200 had gone towards a used 28-70 2.8. The quality leap is HUGE, the cost wasn't a huge disparity then, and I would've gotten much much more out of my camera initially. On the other side, would I have sacrificed the D300 to get a D90 and more solid lens? No. The D300 was the right camera for me, it met my needs. Does the Mkii or Mkiii meet yours? Decide what meets your needs now, what you can grow into, what you won't compromise, and do that. Then determine what lens you NEED to have, and this is important, because the Mkii is much more harsh on lenses than your T1i, it shows the nitty gritty, the back alleys of your lenses and places you'd rather not see. Don't discount used, look at places like KEH, Adorama, B&H, and from known members on here. You can find great deals (I've bought my best gear from members here and KEH, with some stuff from Adorama and B&H too- just be discriminating). A lens that is a generation behind but that was at the top of the game is probably better than anything mid range currently. My 80-200 and 28-70 aren't as good as the 70-200VRII or the 24-70, for a number of reasons, but they blow every other zoom (Nikon) out of the water. AF, build, sharpness, contrast- all miles ahead. Lens improvements at the top end are more piecemeal, small overall (VR/IS is a game changer, but may or may not be applicable to your needs) and are overly hyped to induce Grass is Greener. Another option is to look at the F4 constant lenses if you were to get a MKiii. The better ISO may largely negate the need for 2.8, beyond DoF. Also consider buying from Canon direct with refurb and white box.

In summary:
Make sure you're happy with the body. Period. Handle both, test them both. If you plan to keep it for awhile, play with both, see which you can accept. If you're blown away enough by the MKii, get that. If you're so so on it, but are amazed by the MKiii, get that. If you have no intention to upgrade soon, you have to be comfortable and happy with the body first and foremost, since you know you'll keep it. Lenses change the character of your photos more, and lose value slower, so don't skimp on them, by any means. Wait and get the best pricing you can on the lenses so you can get better lenses sooner. It will pay dividends long term.

Your situation is different in that you have a cam you're relatively happy with now, so you can use that while you save, as well, so it will always just be gravy. Just don't second guess yourself once you pull the trigger. Love it, learn it, the 2nd guessing just erodes your joy.
07/13/2012 06:16:04 AM · #14
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by kirbic:

You are going to find that you are really going to need/want some good glass, and going with the Mk II will allow you another lens at least; perhaps a 70-200 would be an option. Whichever model you buy, it will serve you well for many years. I'm still using an original 5D that's approaching 7 years old, and I have no immediate plans to upgrade. I still love the results and that's what counts.


Funny enough, I faced the OP's decision recently...

When it came down to it, and I carefully examined what I wanted and needed, it turned out that the 5D classic was still a perfect fit for my needs. Sure, I'll want something better in a few years, but I'm going to wait until that mkIII goes down to somewhere around $2500...

So, it may not work for you, or it may... But I'd say that you might want to objectively examine the 5D classic as a legitimate choice in your decision. FYI - I bought mine with a grip for $800 including shipping.

ETA: As to Kirbic's point about lenses, if you go to the mkII or III you will probably need some pretty sweet optics to really make that body shine... However, with this old 5D even my crappiest lenses look pretty good, heck I'm actually LOVING my 28-135 IS again.


i plan be upgrading to FF at the end of the summer. since i do a lot of portrait work now. I am actually considering a 5Dc over the mkii. we'll see where the prices sit when the time comes.

Message edited by author 2012-07-13 06:16:31.
07/13/2012 12:04:43 PM · #15
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

...determine what lens you NEED to have, and this is important, because the Mkii is much more harsh on lenses than your T1i, it shows the nitty gritty, the back alleys of your lenses and places you'd rather not see.


I don't disagree at all, in fact I have always bought the best lenses I could afford for that very reason while usually lagging behind somewhat on my camera body. *HowEVER* may I refer you to the Ken Rockwell link I posted above. He makes a claim that I haven't seen anywhere else...

"The 5D Mark III can help turn sow's-ear lenses into silk purse lenses, meaning you no longer have to hump the newest heavy zooms around when older, lighter lenses can be made to perform better, at least in terms of color fringes, than the best L lenses did on the 5D Mark II last month.

Because of Canon's previous inability to do this, most shots made with anything but insanely good fixed lenses had visible color fringes on the sides. It always drives me nuts when I see this in magazine photos; it's obvious. Canon's worst current lenses are their popular 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and 17-40mm L, which are relatively loaded with corner (lateral) color fringes. These are all too obvious at high resolutions and in magazine reproduction.

The one gotcha is that you need lens-specific profiles loaded into your 5D Mark III to do this, while Nikon has done it automatically with any lens of any brand you put on it. The 5D Mark III has profiles for only few lenses in it, so you'll have to load them manually, and hope that Canon has profiles for each of your lenses, or this feature doesn't work.


A soft lens will always be soft, but at least in the area of CA, if the Mark3 lives up to it's billing, it is something to factor into your decision. Just fyi.

07/13/2012 12:56:12 PM · #16
Unless money is a great problem, go for the Mkiii. I own it since one month ago and it is really GREAT. You'll never look back ;-)
07/13/2012 02:57:22 PM · #17
Just wanted to say with regard to the Ken Rockwell discussion, there is *no* substitute for good glass, period. Ken seems to think that the MkIII is a fix for performance-challenged glass. It is not. Heck, we've already been automatically correcting those issues in software (lens distortion, CA) so the on-board correction on the MkIII is nothing groundbreaking.
$1500 can buy some good glass, and IMO the OP seems to need additional good glass more than the most recent body.
07/13/2012 03:00:11 PM · #18
That's the last word, as far as I'm concerned. For me, kirbic's opinion carries more weight than that other fellow. Seriously.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Just wanted to say with regard to the Ken Rockwell discussion, there is *no* substitute for good glass, period. Ken seems to think that the MkIII is a fix for performance-challenged glass. It is not. Heck, we've already been automatically correcting those issues in software (lens distortion, CA) so the on-board correction on the MkIII is nothing groundbreaking.
$1500 can buy some good glass, and IMO the OP seems to need additional good glass more than the most recent body.
07/13/2012 03:17:35 PM · #19
I agree with ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' kirbic, I should save the little extra cash in the body and get some better glass. I mostly made my decision for the mk2 based on ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', '/') + 1) . ' DrAchoo opinion. The leap from my t1 to the 5d mk2 is a hell of a leap, and will give me a lot to work with. Where as the leap from the mk2 to the mk3 isnt huge at all so its not worth an extra 50% of the cost of the mk2. Therefore im going with the mk2 for sure. However, I still have about a month before I am able to buy it.....so now my dilema is, what new lens to get!!!?? At a quick glance im think about a wide angle (17-40 f/4) or a telephoto zoom (preferably something in the f/2.8 area). I will be getting the 24-105 f/4 so im not so sure if I see a reason in getting the 17-40 f/4 as some of its range is partially covered by the 25-105 and is the same f/4. I love capturing as much as possible in a frame sometimes but i have no real zoom power with my lens collection. Any thoughts/suggestions on this?
07/13/2012 03:21:54 PM · #20
Why don't you start with the 24-105 and work from there? It's a great walkaround lens and I use mine a ton. After a few weeks or a month ask yourself if you were constantly wishing it were wider or wishing you had more zoom. Go in that direction. The 17-40, though it doesn't seem to be much more is quite a bit wider than the 24-105. It is a good relatively inexpensive L-lens. The 70-200 f/4 is not cheap, but cheaper than the 2.8.

I can't advise on non-L-glass because I really don't even consider it. I'm a glass snob 100%.

Message edited by author 2012-07-13 15:25:37.
07/13/2012 03:26:42 PM · #21
Very good point. I have a feeling ill be going wider rather than longer. I would dare buy a second new lens with a new body though! Ill have a lot to catch up on with the new body and a new lens, and to add a second to lens to that....forget it! THanks!
07/13/2012 04:45:37 PM · #22
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why don't you start with the 24-105 and work from there? It's a great walkaround lens and I use mine a ton. After a few weeks or a month ask yourself if you were constantly wishing it were wider or wishing you had more zoom. Go in that direction. The 17-40, though it doesn't seem to be much more is quite a bit wider than the 24-105. It is a good relatively inexpensive L-lens. The 70-200 f/4 is not cheap, but cheaper than the 2.8.

I can't advise on non-L-glass because I really don't even consider it. I'm a glass snob 100%.


I'm in complete agreement with MkII and the 24-105 for starters. I don't see where you need the MkIII at this point in your life anywhere near as much as you need glass. The 24-105 is an incredibly versatile range on FF cameras, and Canon's version has IS, which makes it even sweeter. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' PennyClick liked mine so much, when I bought a used example, that she eventually got one for herself and her 7D, and she uses it a LOT, just as I do on the 5D2. That's a great place to start.

When you decide you want to go wide, you're going to have to choose between the 17-40mm f/4.0L, which I started with, and the 16-35mm f/2.8L, which I now have. The 17-40 is a decent lens, and it has a couple distinct advantages; a 77mm filter size, which matches the 24-105 and also fits the longer zooms mostly (16-35mm is an 82mm filter), and it is both less expensive (half the cost) and lighter than the 16-35mm... On the other hand, I rarely use filters with the ultrawide, the f/2.8 is really nice and bright, and the 16-35mm is just a bit better performer all around, especially with regards to barrel distortion, which is a real bugaboo of mine. I was spoiled by the 10-22mm on the cropped-sensor camera, since it has virtually NO barrel distortion.

I probably never would have made the switch, actually, except that I was able to do a little horse trading with my sister :-)

Anyway, you'll love the 5D2 and the 24-105, guaranteed.
07/13/2012 05:05:16 PM · #23
Originally posted by kirbic:

Just wanted to say with regard to the Ken Rockwell discussion, there is *no* substitute for good glass, period. Ken seems to think that the MkIII is a fix for performance-challenged glass. It is not. Heck, we've already been automatically correcting those issues in software (lens distortion, CA) so the on-board correction on the MkIII is nothing groundbreaking.
$1500 can buy some good glass, and IMO the OP seems to need additional good glass more than the most recent body.


While I can't speak to the CA issue, I will say that the reduced sensor density of the old 5Dc does tend to hide the softness of my 28-135 pretty well. On the 50D it was plain to see that the sensor was out-resolving the lens, on the older 5D that's not really so much of an issue...

Of course, the MkII and MkIII are both fairly dense sensors, so this advantage will not carry forward terribly well.
07/13/2012 05:16:21 PM · #24
Originally posted by Cory:

While I can't speak to the CA issue, I will say that the reduced sensor density of the old 5Dc does tend to hide the softness of my 28-135 pretty well. On the 50D it was plain to see that the sensor was out-resolving the lens, on the older 5D that's not really so much of an issue...

Of course, the MkII and MkIII are both fairly dense sensors, so this advantage will not carry forward terribly well.


That is certainly true for lenses with moderate softness across the frame... but for most lenses, where the problems are in the corners, even the original 5D reveals some very ugly truths.
One of the best examples of this more common case that I can think of is the Tamron 28-75. It's very well regarded by APS-C shooters, and for good reason. But on FF, it's quite another matter.
07/13/2012 05:34:29 PM · #25
Originally posted by kirbic:

... but for most lenses, where the problems are in the corners, even the original 5D reveals some very ugly truths.
One of the best examples of this more common case that I can think of is the Tamron 28-75. It's very well regarded by APS-C shooters, and for good reason. But on FF, it's quite another matter.


No kidding. I loved my 28-75 tammy until I got the 5D, then I couldn't stand to use it anymore. I went without that range of coverage until I managed to snag a 24-105, and whatta relief THAT was...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2019 03:38:17 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/05/2019 03:38:17 PM EST.