ReeRay
Well-known
I use a Mk2 at iso 3200 for all my dimly lit theater work. I use a 50mm F1.4 and a 70-200 F4 IS L and never any issues with noise or AF.
Best camera I've had in 40 years of shooting and no inclination to change.
Best camera I've had in 40 years of shooting and no inclination to change.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I've shot all my wedding work for the past three years on a pair of 5d mark II's and they're great cameras with very few shortcomings, those that it did have all been addressed by the mark III.
For me I didn't like, and tried to avoid going beyond 1600, but was happier still at 1250, more for the blacks getting clogged up and the files generally being less mailable in post production. This would be less relevant if you intend using a lot of flash obviously, but I usually avoid it if I can. A usable 3200 such as the mark III's plus the AF improvement to me were worth the purchase, although initially I'm going to work with a mark II and a mark III, the mark II will not be at any disadvantage for 80% of the time, so I'll wait for the price to drop before moving over to two mk III's.
Other advantages on the newer camera not yet mentioned here, it has a fantastic silent shutter setting, it limits the camera to three shots a second (I never shoot at that rate anyway), but is so much quieter. The hugely improved customisation is great, I have a setting that takes me straight into a user defined magnified review which I'll find very useful. It's so easy to set up how you want it, and at a pixel peeping level the files are sharper or perhaps just better defined, but they definitely have more pop on screen, but I haven't had any prints made yet. Auto Iso setting is actually useful now, on the mark II it was a waste of time.
With regards lens speed, I can only Speak of the lenses Ive used, but I'm on the cusp of buying the 50 1.2 having used the 1.4 for many years but don't tend to use it in low light because of its poor focusing which I've really tired of. I tried the Sigma 1.4, better build and AF, but very soft wide open despite what I'd read in reviews, and I tried two of them, both the same. So that leaves me looking at the overpriced 1.2.
The 35 1.4 is fantastic and not terribly heavy, but I never tried the f2 version. I did have the 85 1.8, a very competent lens, the 1.2 is both expensive and incredibly heavy, but what a lens, it has the most beautiful quality and is my most used lens during receptions, one of Canon's best.
This is just my take, the mark II is a great camera and I'd probably prefer it with a good lens than the mark III with a poor lens, and in close to 100 weddings with the mark II's, I remember two occasions where I've switched the camera off accidently because of the on/off position, and that's carrying two of them.
For me I didn't like, and tried to avoid going beyond 1600, but was happier still at 1250, more for the blacks getting clogged up and the files generally being less mailable in post production. This would be less relevant if you intend using a lot of flash obviously, but I usually avoid it if I can. A usable 3200 such as the mark III's plus the AF improvement to me were worth the purchase, although initially I'm going to work with a mark II and a mark III, the mark II will not be at any disadvantage for 80% of the time, so I'll wait for the price to drop before moving over to two mk III's.
Other advantages on the newer camera not yet mentioned here, it has a fantastic silent shutter setting, it limits the camera to three shots a second (I never shoot at that rate anyway), but is so much quieter. The hugely improved customisation is great, I have a setting that takes me straight into a user defined magnified review which I'll find very useful. It's so easy to set up how you want it, and at a pixel peeping level the files are sharper or perhaps just better defined, but they definitely have more pop on screen, but I haven't had any prints made yet. Auto Iso setting is actually useful now, on the mark II it was a waste of time.
With regards lens speed, I can only Speak of the lenses Ive used, but I'm on the cusp of buying the 50 1.2 having used the 1.4 for many years but don't tend to use it in low light because of its poor focusing which I've really tired of. I tried the Sigma 1.4, better build and AF, but very soft wide open despite what I'd read in reviews, and I tried two of them, both the same. So that leaves me looking at the overpriced 1.2.
The 35 1.4 is fantastic and not terribly heavy, but I never tried the f2 version. I did have the 85 1.8, a very competent lens, the 1.2 is both expensive and incredibly heavy, but what a lens, it has the most beautiful quality and is my most used lens during receptions, one of Canon's best.
This is just my take, the mark II is a great camera and I'd probably prefer it with a good lens than the mark III with a poor lens, and in close to 100 weddings with the mark II's, I remember two occasions where I've switched the camera off accidently because of the on/off position, and that's carrying two of them.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
Really appreciate the responses guys. Looks like it's going to be the MkII. I may wait a little more for it to drop in price (I'm positive it will).
I love the look of the 85, just unsure if that focal distance will work for me. I need to have a look at it instore.
I love the look of the 85, just unsure if that focal distance will work for me. I need to have a look at it instore.
Bill Clark
Veteran
"Maybe get into wedding photography or something alike to start building my career as a photographer)."
Hi!
I use the Canon 5D Mark II cameras for my business.
They are wonderful tools.
However, I'm trying to be as gentle as possible, I find that as a professional photographer about 80% of my success is due to the sales and marketing of my business.
I know lots of terrific photographers, at least their work scores well in print competitions, that are either hurting or have a day job to support themselves.
With wedding photography you can still keep a day job to help support you just in case you need the moola.
There are many expenses to running a successful small business. Some folks are startled and become bewildered after diving in and have a hard time being successful. I'm quite active with our local PPA affiliate, the TCPPA and I see it all the time.
My recommendation, join a local PPA affiliate, if you have one near you. Dip your toes into the water to see if that's what you want to do and can make a success of it.
I consider myself to be an entrepreneur and I picked photography to use as a vehicle for my business.
I wish you the best. Please let me know if I can help you.
Good luck.
Hi!
I use the Canon 5D Mark II cameras for my business.
They are wonderful tools.
However, I'm trying to be as gentle as possible, I find that as a professional photographer about 80% of my success is due to the sales and marketing of my business.
I know lots of terrific photographers, at least their work scores well in print competitions, that are either hurting or have a day job to support themselves.
With wedding photography you can still keep a day job to help support you just in case you need the moola.
There are many expenses to running a successful small business. Some folks are startled and become bewildered after diving in and have a hard time being successful. I'm quite active with our local PPA affiliate, the TCPPA and I see it all the time.
My recommendation, join a local PPA affiliate, if you have one near you. Dip your toes into the water to see if that's what you want to do and can make a success of it.
I consider myself to be an entrepreneur and I picked photography to use as a vehicle for my business.
I wish you the best. Please let me know if I can help you.
Good luck.
PatrickONeill
Well-known
David Burnett is a badass. uses a 50 f1.2.
also.. photographed the president with a holga, that takes guts.
konicaman
konicaman
I have been using the MKII for about a year now. Great camera unless you are doing sport events; for almost anything else it will work fine. The image quality is outstanding. Image noise is not really visible untill you reach 1600 and 3200 (when shooting RAW) is still usable for printing in A3.
Prime lenses are excellent for making portraits of bride and groom, but for shooting the party afterwards a zoom IMHO is a must. I use the rather cheap 28-135 for that. It does not have the same image quality as a good prime, but only pixel peeping will reveal that - not likely that any potential customers would do that.
I suppose you have calculated with a back up camera as well? I never do an assignment without a back up camera. I carry a 550D /T2i (- APS-C will get the job done as well). So far I have not had to use it, but I do not want to be caught half naked
EDIT: If you are buying used - be prepared to change the shutter, just as a precaution. It´s about 150$ to have that done here in Denmark. Can´t imagine that it should be more expensive elsewhere?
Prime lenses are excellent for making portraits of bride and groom, but for shooting the party afterwards a zoom IMHO is a must. I use the rather cheap 28-135 for that. It does not have the same image quality as a good prime, but only pixel peeping will reveal that - not likely that any potential customers would do that.
I suppose you have calculated with a back up camera as well? I never do an assignment without a back up camera. I carry a 550D /T2i (- APS-C will get the job done as well). So far I have not had to use it, but I do not want to be caught half naked
EDIT: If you are buying used - be prepared to change the shutter, just as a precaution. It´s about 150$ to have that done here in Denmark. Can´t imagine that it should be more expensive elsewhere?
f16sunshine
Moderator
When I used a 5D classic and a 40D before the 5Dii was out, they were sure good enough. Then switched to a 5Dii and 5D classic. Few paying customers ever knew the difference. The 5Dii is pretty much super. As a person who loves rangefinders the "focus in the center and recompose" method is quite natural. Actually it has always been natural even when I a Contax RTS and film.
I would love the Mark III for the dual card slots. Having a BU is great. Being able to assign different RAW sizes onto different cards would be even better. Keeping the big RAW on the card for serious PP and, downloading small ones or jpegs onto a Macbook air in the field would be sweet. It would be a luxury to have the extra security. Security that can also be had by carrying a small HD so, really more a luxury or rather shortcut.
BTW iirc ..David Burnett who was mentioned was using a Canon 20D next to his Holga and 4x5 when he photographed the John Kerry campaign photos in 2004. Many adapted lenses from Contax and Nikon as well. Which camera really does not matter that much!
I would love the Mark III for the dual card slots. Having a BU is great. Being able to assign different RAW sizes onto different cards would be even better. Keeping the big RAW on the card for serious PP and, downloading small ones or jpegs onto a Macbook air in the field would be sweet. It would be a luxury to have the extra security. Security that can also be had by carrying a small HD so, really more a luxury or rather shortcut.
BTW iirc ..David Burnett who was mentioned was using a Canon 20D next to his Holga and 4x5 when he photographed the John Kerry campaign photos in 2004. Many adapted lenses from Contax and Nikon as well. Which camera really does not matter that much!
Jamie123
Veteran
It's always nicer to buy new and if you can afford it, sure, why not. I got mine new, too.
The advantage of buying used right now is that there are a lot of them for sale as many people are 'upgrading' to the Mark III so you could probably get one for a very good price.
Jamie123
Veteran
That's what everyone's been saying so far but seeing the studio samples on dpreview today I was quite surprised. The high ISO performance in the samples looks damn near indistinguishable right up to 6400.
celluloidprop
Well-known
Instead of being around the shutter button, the 5D II's on/off is a toggle on the lower back near the LCD screen.
I'm sure it's the kind of thing you get used to, but having the switch right at my fingertip was much more natural than needing to let go of the camera to turn it on and off.
On the 7D and 5D3, it's been moved to the mode dial.
Jockos
Well-known
Why would you turn it off? The battery last for months on standby.
bobbyrab
Well-known
When changing cards or lenses.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Jockos
Well-known
No need to turn the camera off just to change lens.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm afraid you should, firstly to stop the sensor from being charged which makes it more likely to attract dust, and secondly if you have any IS lenses, it can damage the mechanism if you remove the lens while it's active [this info was told me by Fixation who deal with Canon repairs in London], so to protect these lenses it's best to be in the habit of always turning the camera off first.
Lund
Established
The 5D II is great. Paired with a 35L or a 85L it always gives me what I want. Since I'm in a medium format film period I don't use it much but it feels great knowing that it is there if I ever need it.
Sure it could be better, but it is more than good enough and the files from it once you get used to them and can adjust your PP is more than atleast I need. (having an mamiya universal as more or less main camera may however make your wonder about my grip of ergonomics and ease of use)
Sure it could be better, but it is more than good enough and the files from it once you get used to them and can adjust your PP is more than atleast I need. (having an mamiya universal as more or less main camera may however make your wonder about my grip of ergonomics and ease of use)
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Noctilux? For a beginning working pro? Maybe if they have unlimited funds and don't get stressed out worrying about dropping it or leaving it somewhere!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
David Burnett is now an ESTABLISHED working pro, with clients that want to pay him big-ish money for his work. The OP is, I understand, just beginning a pro career. My point is that when one is just starting out, facing lots of uncertainty, we shouldn't load ourselves down with unnecessary debt. Maybe renting specialized gear for specific assignments is the way to go.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I'd also argue that there are very few paying jobs that can't be done just as well with the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 as with the 1.2L versions.
The wide Ls are a different story - there's no 24/2 or 35/2 of great quality and USM, yet.
The wide Ls are a different story - there's no 24/2 or 35/2 of great quality and USM, yet.
huntjump
Well-known
^^ this is correct about the sensor attracting dust. You should turn it off when changing lens, i dont see why you wouldnt..