5D Mk II or Mk III?

[GreggS]

I'll keep this post short and sweet. I'm looking for whether or not to make the upgrade/investment to a 5D Mk III, or just go with a Mk II for now, based on these facts:

Goal: Begin to use photography as a second source of income through small business.

Camera Body's primary uses (in this order):
1. Event Photography (weddings, senior/engagement photos, sporting events, freelance newspaper work, etc.)
2. Other portraiture (w/out studio for now, small studio eventually)
3. Lanscape/cityscape
4. Travel/Sightseeing

Any guidance is welcome, especially if you have experience or have used both bodies. Budget, of course, is an issue, but I can manage the additional $ for the Mk III if I feel I really need to.

Thanks!

(Current equipment listed below)

 

[jaomul]

5d iii because you mentioned sports events

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income.

Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.

 

[GreggS]

Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income.

Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.

Yup... the freelancing stuff for those weekends I may be bored and there's some stuff going on around town worth shooting. re: your suggestion...Why do you suggest investing in the MkII w/ the 50 1.2 over the MkIII.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I suggest the 5D2 and the 50L because aside from the 200mm, your lenses suck.

 

[GreggS]

I suggest the 5D2 and the 50L because aside from the 200mm, your lenses suck.

in that case, wouldn't looking at a 70-200mm f2.8 or f4 be a better thought, in terms of versatility?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

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.

 

[gsgary]

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.

In that case what about an M9 and Noctilux 50mm f0.95

 

[gsgary]

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.

I'm a bit shocked you didn't say shoot film

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income.

Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.

OR get a Sigma 50 1.4 for even cheaper which some Canon users have said is very comparable to the 50 1.2 L lens.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

 

[GreggS]

Thanks for the tips, everyone. I think at this point, it would make more sense to go with a used Mk II and spend that money I'll be saving on some higher quality glass.

 

[morganza]

5d iii because you mentioned sports events

Yeah, I agree.

 

[daarksun]

If you can afford the upgrade get the 5DIII. It's like the full frame 7D and great for everything. Plenty of room to grow. You'r lenses can always be sold off and changed as your needs change, but the body you keep a long time (for most of us).

 

[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