EOS 5D Mk III or Mk II as first full frame?
Maybe this has been done to death but...
I currently have an EOS 40D with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and a Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 which I use mostly for travel and landscapes. I've been wanting to get a full frame camera for a while and finally had the money for a purchase. The 5D Mk III was on sale at Amazon last night for $3199 so I ordered a body but have been having second thoughts because I can get a Mk II with EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens for $2500.
I know it's a bit subjective but if I'm mostly going to be using the camera for travel and landscapes would the Mk II be a smarter choice? Is image quality between the two significantly different? I went with the Mk III for the more advanced focusing but how much will this matter with subject matter that is mostly static?
I currently have an EOS 40D with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and a Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 which I use mostly for travel and landscapes. I've been wanting to get a full frame camera for a while and finally had the money for a purchase. The 5D Mk III was on sale at Amazon last night for $3199 so I ordered a body but have been having second thoughts because I can get a Mk II with EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens for $2500.
I know it's a bit subjective but if I'm mostly going to be using the camera for travel and landscapes would the Mk II be a smarter choice? Is image quality between the two significantly different? I went with the Mk III for the more advanced focusing but how much will this matter with subject matter that is mostly static?
0
Comments
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/5d3_hdr_capabilities.shtml
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx
http://clients.joshmartinezphotography.com/photos/i-bdm6Q6X/3/L/i-bdm6Q6X-L.jpg
http://clients.joshmartinezphotography.com/Gallery/Photographers-Corner/Ski-Touring-the-Chugach-41012/22386570_WGzwNL#!i=1789429205&k=kvqT2zn
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
1. It's getting old in the tooth...it's been around for a while...
2. And, I've said this before...don't discount new technology. Newer better everything, usually. Engineers are constantly tweaking and fixing weaknesses found in older models, not to mention the outright advertised newer, better stuff that they put in the new models. The 5D3 is more expensive...but, it's a much better camera.
3. The name of the game is more keepers...in more diverse shooting situations.
4. Right now, you may only be interested in landscapes, but that may change once you get your camera. I know that my interests, although still portrait and wedding oriented, vary as quickly as I can think of new things that I want to do.
And, that's why I suggest that, if you can afford it, buy as good as you can afford.
Hope this helps.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
If I could have afforded it, I'm sure the 5dIII would have been exactly right for me, but even the flash-sale prices were outside my budget at over than $1000 more expensive than the current price on the II; I decided I was willing to give up newer technology and the features of my 7d (which I intend to keep for the time being) to go to a FF sensor.
In any case, here you go...
Learning curve. Big, big, BIG learning curve. I've been shooting a crop sensor since I jumped from my film camera, and 80% of my technical knowledge has been gained since shooting digital (thank you dgrin
Things I have learned since the 5dII arrived on Tuesday:
Don't like's:
- I miss the buttons and customizabilty of the 7d. I REALLY miss the "Q" button in particular - had to go googling to find out how to access it on the II (I could see it was there since it would flash up for me, but not how to get into it!! Finally got it now.).
- I miss the *speed* of the 7d's AF, although I'm not sure I'd say there's much difference in accuracy so far - if anything, the opposite (read below)
- I'm still finding the metering rather different and do miss the 7d's focus-linked meter. Once I'm used to how the II behaves and can anticipate readout vs result more consistently I'm sure I"ll be fine, but right now it means a change in my shooting rhythm as I learn to "read" this particular camera and choose settings accordingly. Even things like FEC are a bit different than I expect, so it requires me to shoot/chimp/reset more than I typically do. Feels like breaking in a new pair of shoes!
Likes:
- Love the way it holds -the added width to the 7d's shape (without any added chunkiness) is a dream for my hands
- The details and dynamic range are even better than I had hoped - just in love with the image quality. I'm quite surprised at how much greater the dynamic range seems to be since reading around I gather it and the 7d are just a smidgen difference. But, for whatever reason, I'm noticing the II much better able to give me the extremes without needing as much processing to tame them and/or bring out the details.
- the crazy high ISO. Obviously, no news there since that's the camera's strength, but it's very fun to be able to go with 2000 or 2500 without even thinking about it.
Loves
- DOF/Bokeh Oh.Muh.Guh. I knew it would be good, but I don't think I ever dreamed it would be THIS good
- The way the sensor renders light is just *different*. Hardly news to anybody who has used FF, but it's even better than I had hoped it could be. It "sparkles" - with all of my lenses. Couldn't be happier with the IQ.
- files seem to take less processing/editing to get them where I want them. I guess I've been trying for that FF look since I started shooting seriously; it's possible to emulate it on a crop sensor, but it does take more work in post. These files are there almost SOOC.
Now about that AF. It's definitely slower, no doubt about that - my 7d focuses almost as soon as I've thought about it, where the II has to think about it. However, I'm realising may not be such a bad thing for me, because it slows me down and makes me think a little bit more before I take the shot; it's a limitation, but one I think may actually turn out to be a benefit after a fashion when I'm shooting portraits.
Also - and this was surprising - even when I look at a shot on the LCD and think, "Crap - missed that one" when I get it on the computer I discover that the camera actually NAILED the focus for me (yes, even using the outer points). This is the opposite of my experience with the 7d where I'll look at it on the LCD and think it's great, then get it home and discover I missed focus. I'm shooting the same shallow DOF style with both cameras, fwiw.
In summary:
There is no doubt this decision has been a step backwards to go forward, but not always in a bad way. The 5dII makes me work harder to take the picture, but the results are consistently better. Whether that's because it demands more thought from me because the camera does less of the work for me, or because the IQ is just that much better I don't know, but there we have it. Very, very happy I took the plunge (and thank you to everybody who took the time to respond in this thread - really helped with my decision).
That said, I do miss enough features from the 7d that I will be watching prices on the III like a hawk, and as soon as it drops consistently to something more manageable will likely sell the 7d and the II to move up to it for the various features I find myself missing (I'll keep my xsi as backup). The 7d is an extraordinary camera, and to have the best of its features AND a FF sensor would be amazing. I understand now why people have been raving about it!
I will second this observation. I started sports shooting on a 5DII (and still use it occasionally for this), and the near total lack of burst mode made me really hone my timing skills. (I probably spent hundreds of hours shooting birds in flight using a single AF point.) When I upgraded to a real sports body (1D4) I started using burst mode a lot, only to find that I had fewer keepers. After shooting a few events, I went back to trying to time the shots, and my keeper rate went way up.
Funny story about that...I was shooting a sports event recently, sitting next to one of the best Getty shooters in the country. After a few minutes of hearing nothing but single clicks, he asked why I wasn't using burst mode. I told him that camera was set to burst mode, but I rarely use it. I'm not sure if he was impressed or dismissive, but he did turn and smile when I finally fired off a few frames in burst mode!
I sometimes think we rely too much on camera technology, rather than refining our skills. No camera sees what our eye sees, so even the most sophisticated technology will often fail to capture what we'd like. But with a little practice and patience, we can usually make it happen.
Sure am glad I started sports shooting on a 5DII (but glad I don't have to anymore!)...
Congratulations...post some images when you get a chance.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
nice upgrade from the 40D
I just got my first smartphone after my employer stopped providing a regular flip cell phone. I feel absolutely violated. In just two years this damn thing is going to cost me about $2700. And the camera sucks compared to the 5D3!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm not going to force anyone else into believing DXOMark sensor rankings as truth or fact, however I will point out that they do rate the 5D mk2 above the 5D mk3 for dynamic range. More importantly, my real-world experience, having processed tens of thousands of images from both cameras by now, is that the 5D mk3 is annoying and borderline abysmal to process for extreme dynamic range landscapes. If you're into HDRs at all, you're in for a sore disappointment when it comes to the 5D mk3 shadows. I dunno what it is about Photomatix, my reference point, but shadows of the 5D mk3 go totally plaid green.
Of course if you're even remotely into anything OTHER than pure landscapes alone, the 5D mk3 becomes a lot more valuable and a better overall buy. However I still feel it is worth mentioning since you stated that you really cared about landscapes, and you were wondering about the image quality. Unfortunately, 99% of the people you encounter will sing 100% praise of the 5D mk3 compared to the 5D mk2, but I just wanted to put forth my experience as a professional post-producer who does see differences especially when it comes to landscapes and extreme dynamic range. Honestly, considering your current lens investment level, I'd also consider the Nikon D600 and the Sony A99, which both have truly epic image quality, with dynamic range that is leaps and bounds beyond anything Canon offers. But I don't want to start an argument on that subject. Keep in mind that I am talking about EXTREME envelope pushing; I'm talking about cranking your shadows and blacks (LR4) to +100, and your highlights / whites to -100. I'm talking about THAT kind of dynamic range. ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I leave the camera setting on continuous shooting because I can always delete a few extra unwanted pics, it's tough to add back a shot you didn't take
As someone also considering this choice, I was startled by your comments about dynamic range and looked up the DXOMark ratings. What they report is a very small mean difference in dynamic range, but a sizable improvement in dynamic range at ISO>800. The changes they show below 800 are very small, and they describe them as "no improvement," not as a decline:
I haven't used either camera yet, so I am not disputing your extensive experience, but I personally don't see the DXOMark ratings as a reason to prefer the II.
Dan
It is much moreso real-world experience and sheer volume of post-production practice that makes me hate the mk3 sensor. The charts do not tell the whole story. Instead of "no improvement", what I see at base ISO's is a massive issue with green noise. I have seen it in over a half-dozen 5D mk3's by now. AKA 100% of the ones I've tested...
Of course I cannot stress this enough- this only becomes an issue if you're REALLY pushing your exposures. I'm talking about one-shot HDR type situations... If your exposures are always managed nicely and you never need to dig that deep into your shadows, then again like I said the mk3 becomes a far superior camera.
Speaking of HDR's, though, that's another problem- You can't just escape the green shadows by trying to bracket and creating an HDR, because the HDR blend somehow makes the shadows even worse. At least in Photomatix which I use, which is in my opinion the de-facto program for HDR blending.
To be blunt, here is my opinion: If you're really concerned with extreme dynamic range, you should either consider switching to Nikon altogether, or your should just buy whatever Canon you want and live with it. It's not really that bad as long as you stay away from the extreme edge of the envelope...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://www.brianpowell.info
As someone who upgraded from a Mark II to a Mark III, I can tell you that the Mark II is VERY dated. Everything feels old, clumsy. The LCD is junk compared to the Mark III, and the AF is terrible. If you were soley shooting landscapes 100% of the time, then the Mark II would be fine, but for any other form of photography, the Mark III exceeds 10 fold in every way. I shutter when I think about the old days with my Mark II
Also, on another not, I have the 24-105 f/4 and am not impressed with it at all. The images never seem sharp, and I hate being limited to f/4. In my opinion, this glass should not be considered an L series.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yup, you should've bought the 5D2. It is a great body for what you want to do with it.
Why pay for something you don't need and not be able to buy a nice lens instead?
If I was you I would keep the Tamron around and buy a 70-200 f/4.0 L IS with a 5D2 instead
of a 5D3.
It doesn't matter a bit how dated a camera is as long as it does its job. Generation
of award winning photographers have been using much more dated tools than a 5D2.
I guess sometimes we need a little reality check...
― Edward Weston
I took a friend's 5D3 for a spin and echo Matt's comments and observations. Aside from the AF limitations, the Mark II is a great camera. Think I'll keep mine a while longer...
Again though, as an overall camera the mk3 is certainly much better, much more well-rounded, and a better long-term investment. I was absolutely thrilled when the 5D mk3 came out. The only instance in which I think the 5D mk2 is a better value is for slow-paced shooters who care only about image quality and nothing else.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My 5D2 is mostly my walkaround camera now, so the pace is slow and IQ is the main requirement.
The improved AF is a really welcome addition, and the build of the 5D3 feels much more solid, which I like. Then again, I've seriously abused my 5D2: dropped it many times, left it soaking in water for many hours, etc., and it's the only body I have that has not failed.
Amortized over several years, I guess I would get a 5D3 over a 5D2 were that my choice--though I am not convinced that the IQ is even as good as the older body.
I do too, though I find I get better shots by trying to time them; that, and a lot of short busts can mean the difference between culling/editing/captioning 500-600 shots and 2000 shots. On assignent, when I need to edit and submit live, it does help to have a higher usable-to-waste ratio. Liberal use of bust mode gives me a *lot* of waste!
Link to my Smugmug site
What?! I spent 3 years with a 5D2 and got a 5D3 in March. I've never seen anything to make me think the 5D2 was better in any regard.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I totally agree. This 12800 shot really sucks on my 5D2. I know the 5D3 would do a much better job
Have a good day
Jim...
But I didn't buy the 5D3 for the ISO or the IQ, I already had all I needed in those regards. I bought it for the AF and fps. I'm absolutely loving it for that AND the silent shutter mode and in-cam HDR.
Nice dance shot, by the way. Love the pose and the shadow on the right. I'll share one of mine, not that it has anything to do with my post.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Well then, you have a lot more experience comparing the two than I do. I shot a night soccer game at high ISO on my buddy's 5D3 and did notice more of a certain kind of noise in the shadows. However, the more likely explanation is that the noise was less familiar that what I am used to on a 5D2, so I noticed it more.
What I will say is that shots from even my 5D2 clean up better than shots from my 1D4, even though the latter ostensibly has better high ISO IQ. I will be shooting a NCAA soccer game this evening (Stanford v Santa Clara, in the playoffs) and would have used my 5D2 instead of my 1D4 if I had not purchased 1Dx bodies recently. Shooting at ISO 8000 on an X is no big deal.
Link to my Smugmug site
No surprise...I guess I should have said 'claimed ISO range' instead of IQ. Honestly, why do they claim a high ISO of 102,000 on a 1D4?! This body can't go anywhere close to that range! Then again, the X claims a high ISO that is 204,000, which is also ridiculous. I can safely shoot up to 8000 on an X, but things do get noisy above that. However, that is better than the effective 3200 limitation on even the best of Canon's previous models.
This was done w/ M2's. In fact, everything I do is w/ M2's. ">">
">