Canon 5d Mk II

J

Jubb Jubb

Well-known
Local time
3:58 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
472
I have been thinking about purchasing a Canon 5D MKII to start doing some pro-work. (Maybe get into wedding photography or something alike to start building my career as a photographer).

I mainly shoot with an xPan and a Leica M8, but need something with good ISO performance, auto-focus, and something a bit bigger than 10mp.

The MKIII has come out, but is there any reason to spend an extra $1500 on it? I am thinking I could get a decent lens for that price, possibly the 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L.

Does anyone here shoot with the MKII? And do you have any advice?

Many thanks.
 
I've read the main big improvement in the Mklll is the auto focus.

Gavin (gavinlg) who posts here regularly should see this thread and will chime in soon I'm sure. :)
 
The 5D2 is a fine camera. I don't like EOS controls (vs. Nikon) and the little things aren't done as well as Nikon (IMO - location of on-off switch, changing focus points/method, auto ISO, etc.), but it gives you a very nice file. High-ISO noise is a dead heat with the D700 when resized to the same output, though I think the D700 files had a bit more malleability as far as dynamic range.

But if you shoot almost entirely in center point-recompose (as I do), most of the advancements in AF are less than relevant.
 
A Leica-friendly forum is possibly the only place I wouldn't feel absurd about saying I'd pay $1000 extra (vs 5D2) for the 5D3's on-off switch and interface improvements if I were a Canon shooter. Autofocus improvements are a bonus.
 
Don't bother with the 1.2 lenses. Think like a pro (i.e.- buy equipment you NEED, not what you want), save the money for things you've not foreseen yet (flash equipment? advertising?...)
 
@ Celluloidprop - I used to shoot a Nikon D200, the on/off position there was awesome.
Where is the positioning on the Canon. Only reason i was thinking Canon over Nikon is that they invested in Digital Video, where Nikon didn't.

@ Jamie Pillers - thanks for the advice. Advertising is expensive (I work in it as a designer!), but maybe my industry knowledge can help me out there...

@JSU - I am used to only using max. 320 iso. So anything that does well above that is excellent. Anything that does well indoors and on overcast days.
 
I have been using a 5DII for a couple of years now and it's a very nice camera. The main advantages of the 5DIII for photographers seem to be the much improved AF, better high-ISO performance the dual card slots and maybe the better built CF door. All of these improvements are cool but they're not worth the price if you don't really need them.
The improved AF is nice but if you're like me and you mostly use the center AF point then it really makes little difference. The dual card slots are certainly useful although I've never had CF card problems so far so I don't think I absolutely need a backup card). Also, better high-ISO is nice but I rarely shoot above ISO800 which is perfectly fine with the 5DII.

I'd say go for the 5DII. Since you're buying used you can always sell a few months later with little loss if you decide it's not for you.
 
Jamie123 said:
I'd say go for the 5DII. Since you're buying used you can always sell a few months later with little loss if you decide it's not for you.
Click to expand...

I won't be buying used. I've been told they will be on the market for the next 6 or so months... wouldn't i be better off buying new?
 
1.2 lenses are WAY over-rated! They create more problems than they're worth... by a long shot! They're usually at least twice as expensive as a 1.4 lens, they are more liable to suffer from being knocked around in you bag, and they add unnecessary weight that's going to drive anyone hustling around on a pro assignment absolutely mad! AND... look around the web for awhile... you'll not find many successful images (money-earners) created with 1.2 lenses. Heck... f/2.0 lenses are PLENTY fast enough... especially with all the high performing sensors around these days.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
1.2 lenses are WAY over-rated! They create more problems than they're worth... by a long shot! They're usually at least twice as expensive as a 1.4 lens, they are more liable to suffer from being knocked around in you bag, and they add unnecessary weight that's going to drive anyone hustling around on a pro assignment absolutely mad! AND... look around the web for awhile... you'll not find many successful images (money-earners) created with 1.2 lenses. Heck... f/2.0 lenses are PLENTY fast enough... especially with all the high performing sensors around these days.

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

What about the Noctilux f/0.95?
 
I love my 5DmkII and I am HAPPY I got it in January, because the mkIII is $1500 more and offers only one real feature: better AF. I don't care about that, the mkII AF is very good, and I use manual focus a lot anyway.

pizza-fly.jpg


There's a FLY in my pizza! Shot at ISO-1600, no noise reduction. Image quality is even better at lower ISO. I use mine at 100 95% of the time.
 
Im a nikon shooter, but I have no problem recommending the mdii. Being biased however, i'd recommend the d700 if you dont need video. If high ISO matters more though, the d700 outshines it and saves you the mdiii price tag, but again at the expense of video. (but the af is fast). If wedding PHOTOGRAPHY is your business, not sure how much video you will be doing. guess its nice to have the flexibility
 
Keith said:
I've read the main big improvement in the Mklll is the auto focus.

Gavin (gavinlg) who posts here regularly should see this thread and will chime in soon I'm sure. :)
Click to expand...

Hehe.. I actually don't use my 5d as much anymore since getting the x100!

But yeah, theres a few big improvements in the mkIII. I actually handled one today. Biggest is AF which is 1d level. It's actually better than the 1d MKIV in this regard. You're gaining about 1.5-2 stops on high iso performance, and the camera is nicer to hold and seems better built. There's a whole host of other non-advertised improvements too - for instance the manual focus indicator dot now has arrows on either side to indicate focus direction for MF users.

The biggest problem I have with the mk1 & mk2 is that the AF isn't super accurate at wide apertures like it is on the 1d series. the III should change that.
 
Canon 5DII

Canon 5DII

I love mine but use all primes and, bar 135/f2, all are manual so the auto focus is not an issue. The TS-E lenses are great for what I do mostly - landscapes. The 135 is great for my other stuff - jazz musicians and the high ISO performance is a knock out. The quality is great and huge crops are easy. The III has all the advantages everyone has mentioned - do you need them is the question. The only thing wrong with it is weight when I am walking any distance because with all the glass and a suitable tripod it is weighty. Then I use my M9 and 3 lenses that fit on my pockets if I want. It is a moot point but I thin my 1960s 35 and 50mm Summicrons do an equal or slightly better job than the L lenses, which I think are superb. Save the money, buy the glass.
Cheers
Adrian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom