5D Mk II or Mk III?

[rexbobcat]

You'll really appreciate the Mark III's autofocus if you shoot anything that moves. Look into a 24-70 or 24-105, which are great walk-around lenses. Personally, I would not suggest the 50 1.2, which has laughable sharpness below f/2.8 and is a total rip-off for the money. The 85 1.2 is much better. Get the 50 1.4 if you want a 50.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I don't mean to derail the conversation but does the 5DIII have an AF that is comparable to the 1D Mark IV and older 1D cameras?

 

[sovietdoc]

AF in my 5d3 runs circles around my friends 1d IV, but of course, he just says he got a bad copy.

 

[rballard1076]

I own a mk ii and have played around with a mk iii. I enjoy my Mkii don't get me wrong, but if you had the budget to get a Mkiii I would bite the bullet. The autofocus is much better. My Mkii can be very frustrating to get sharp images with, and this is shooting with nice sharp primes.

 

[TheBiles]

You'll really appreciate the Mark III's autofocus if you shoot anything that moves. Look into a 24-70 or 24-105, which are great walk-around lenses. Personally, I would not suggest the 50 1.2, which has laughable sharpness below f/2.8 and is a total rip-off for the money. The 85 1.2 is much better. Get the 50 1.4 if you want a 50.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I don't mean to derail the conversation but does the 5DIII have an AF that is comparable to the 1D Mark IV and older 1D cameras?

It has the same AF as the 1DX (minus its 100,000 pixel metering).

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201

 

[LShooter]

I never owned a 5D Mk II, but I did own a 7D for a long time. I shot the Mk II on many occassions when I got to use those that belonged to friends. I loved the IQ but never liked the AF system. The 7D just spoiled me. About a month ago I sold my 7D and upgraded to the Mk III and could not be happier!!! It is an amazing camera and I have no regrets. The price is probably a few hundred more than it needs to be, but it is a great camera which should last many many years and I think it has enough extra features that the Mk II doesn't has that it will give you greater overall peformance and more real world options down the road.

 

[sovietdoc]

The price is probably five hundred more than it needs to be, but it is a great camera which should last many many years and I think it has enough extra features that the Mk II doesn't has that it will give you greater overall peformance and more real world options down the road.

fixed typo for you

 

[Christie Photo]

...if you had the budget to get a Mkiii I would bite the bullet. The autofocus is much better. My Mkii can be very frustrating to get sharp images with, and this is shooting with nice sharp primes.

I'm making the same decision now... between the 2 and 3.

Most of my work is from a tripod and with manual focus.

What are other considerations between the two cameras?

Thanks.

-Pete

 

[Big Mike]

The mkIII has duel memory card slots, which is a big deal for some photographers as it offers instant redundancy for your image files.
The mkIII has a slightly bigger (maybe better) LCD screen.
The mkIII uses a newer processor (Digic 5)...I think it may have two of them (one for the AF etc.)
The mkIII allows for up to 5 stops of EC, mkII is typical with only two.

It's a really tough choice IMO. The mkIII is obviously a superior camera...but it's also A LOT more expensive.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...cts=canon_eos5dmkiii&products=canon_eos5dmkii

 

[Christie Photo]

Thanks, Mike. Good info. Thanks for the link too.

I'm left with the same feelings as you. Damn.


I'll be sure to let you know what I do.

Thanks again.
-Pete

 

[Jiffer]

Canon 5dm3 can record 29.59 nonstop so for you guys who have long long run times this camera is great

 

[Alex_B]

If you know what you are doing, you can even compete on the market with an mk I

... but it will be tougher with some limitations. The mk II is well useable with sports .. but a bit trickier to get the focus right, that is true.

 

[sovietdoc]

I think as many people have summarized it multiple times already, the choice really depends on what you're shooting.

For sports you'll be kidding yourself if trying to shoot fast action with 5d2.

For landscapes, and studio work 5D2 is just fine.

For weddings and events..I'd say 5d2 will do fine as well.

So unless you shoot fast moving objects a lot, 5D 3 isn't worth the price premium.

 

[DScience]

I dunno...LOL this is where experience comes into play.

Sorry if i'm being a bit elitist or sarcastic, but it really depends on how you want your pictures to look. sure a 24-70, and 70-200 are flexible options that can shoot just about anything...but it seems like everyone and their grandmother with a FF DSLR has one and as a result, they're BORING AS HELL. So I say save money on the body and get some exotic lens that most people don't shoot with.

Although some are trying to mock Sw1tchFX, this is the best advice. The question isn't "who shoot's with zoom's" it's who shoots with more exotic lenses. This is where you can get 'artistic' and personalized photos.

 

[MLeeK]

5d iii because you mentioned sports events

Yeah, I agree.

I have shot some sporting events with the 5d2 and frankly, it sucks. Slow FPS, crappy focus with only one cross type focus point.
I am NOT in love with my 5d2. Anything low light or moving? I hate it. I default to my 7D more often than my 5d2.
I'd actually say your choices would be either the 5d3 or the 7D according to what you want to shoot.
My thoughts: If you start with the 7D now you can shoot everything you want to shoot with it. You WILL need a second body as a back up down the line when working professionally. The price will eventually drop down a bit on the 5d3. Give it a year. Then pick that up as your primary and the 7D as your secondary.

Your most important investment will be your lenses. I won't tell you what lenses YOU need because it all depends on the style of the shooter.
I can tell you what I would do: As a sports shooter I cannot live without my 70-200 f/2.8 OS, Sigma. I also use it for most portraits and for weddings.
I am a zoom kind of shooter, so my next necessary lens would be the 24-70 f/2.8L or a similar lens like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.
For portraits I LOVE my 28mm. I would shoot with all primes for portraiture if I had them. I have a 50mm and I am desperately wanting the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.4 for portraits. They'll be on this year's list for upgrades. Primes are the sharpest of sharp lenses. L glass primes are beyond my upgrade budget at this point, but they are the best of the best glass.
What you choose to shoot with is almost as personal as what kind of underwear you wear. It has to fit YOU and YOUR needs, style and comfort zone.

 

[bratkinson]

I'd say hold on to the 5DII you have and upgrade to faster glass and perhaps a bigger flash. If you're doing event photography, you definitely need faster glass. And for indoor weddings and such, more light(s).

Just my $0.02 worth...