5D MKII, 5D or 50D?

[eyeye]

no problem! Its very interesting. I so want that 5d mkii...trying to figure out if I need it or if I just want it cause it would be so much fun

 

[Orgnoi1]

I find it surprising how many people actually DO believe that a camera such as a 5D or a 1D Mark II are "out of date"...LOL

 

[frXnz kafka]

eyeye: What do you have for lenses now? I'm surprised no one has asked this yet, as it's a pretty important deciding factor.

The 5D (mkI) is going to give you what you want, which is clean photos at ISO400 & 800, and usable photos at ISO1600. The mkII will give you clean photos all the way up to 3200, and usable photos at 6400.

So, if you don't have nice lenses now (which I don't know, because no one asked), the 5D is an excellent camera. If your lenses are good, then you might as well get the mkII.

 

[londonmoon]

5DMKII better quality man!

 

[eyeye]

I have a 24-105 f4 L USM IS and a 70-200 f/4 L USM IS. Did I get that in the right order? I feel like I need 3 more. A good prime (50mm 1.4f is what I am eying), a wide angle and a prime macro. But I love the two I have now and they suit me nicely right now.

 

[iriairi]

I have a 24-105 f4 L USM IS and a 70-200 f/4 L USM IS. Did I get that in the right order? I feel like I need 3 more. A good prime (50mm 1.4f is what I am eying), a wide angle and a prime macro. But I love the two I have now and they suit me nicely right now.

eyeye- I have the 24-105 and have just bought a used/refurbed 5d from B&H. I have worked with it for less than a week, but am really enjoying the step up to full frame. I accidentally took some shots on 1600 (thought I had changed to 200) and was feeling a little bad about the slight hint of noise I saw until I realized. Hope that doesn't mean I have to turn the 5d in... I couldn't justify the extra 1000$ for the MKII. (I was stepping up from the XTi, too.) How do you like the 70-200? I am trying to decide what to do about a little more range. I have an entry level 70-300 sigma, and am afraid that the 200, would be a little short for me... Particularly on a full frame.

 

[eyeye]

I like my 70-200 for close up portraits. It have lovely tones and bokah. But I havent found much use for it outside that. I dont even really like it for full body portraits from a distance. I always handhold so I think I get too much shake...why being able to turn iso and use a faster sutter speed might help. having to do it over, and because I do portrait, I think I would have gotten a prime instead. I like the 24-105 alot for my all around lens

 

[JerryPH]

Technique, technique, technique!

Especially outside is where a 70-200 would just so literally outshine ANYTHING in final results and you are saying that you get the shakes? Increase aperture and increase shutter speed a little. I have practiced long and hard and I can get PERFECTLY motion free pics down to 1/25th consistently at 200mm and 1/15th at under 70mm. It takes good breathing technique, body position and as I said, practice. I also find the longer/heavier lenses easier to control, in general.

Outside, where it is 9 times out of 10, brighter, this should not even be an issue unless you are shooting at night, in which case, you could consider some nice off camera flash.

Unless you have a camera that is very clean at higher ISO, I would not raise it unless I maxed out all other choices like aperture, shutter speed and possibly some small amount of fill flash from an off-camera source.

 

[eyeye]

I know, ISO comes last. I am always shooting things in motion, kids! Its a wee bit like taking photos at a war zone sometimes! Heavy lenses are ... heavy and harder to move around with. There might be another reason but my results are hit and miss with my 70-200. No fear, I will keep at it.