Need some help mulling over 5D mk2 v 5D mk3

cokebottles

cokebottles

cokebottles

Associate
Joined
12 Aug 2003
Posts
786
Location
North London
Hi guys.

Hoping to get some feedback from users of the 5D mk2 (and 5D mk3).

Basically here's my story (one Im sure has come up a fair few times on forums, and I'm well aware of the stigma it carries):

I've been into photography since I was around 8 years old helping my dad in the makeshift darkroom we had for a few years in our garden shed. Ive always had a camera of some sort since then.

Fast forward 2007, I bought my first DSLR; Olympus E-330 which was lovely but I soon became acutely aware of the Olympus system and the 4:3 sensor etc. April 2008, I purchased a brand new 450D and photography, in terms of a hobby, moved on to the next phase for me. Since then Ive taken the camera around the world with me. I've experimented with a few lenses by renting quality glass from time to time, and have ended up doing a bit of everything from landscapes, motorsport, portraits.

Here comes the typically cliché part of my post: Over the passed year or so, friends of mine have been getting engaged, married, etc and I've had to look through many photographers galleries. From time to time, I have done this and thought "Given time, Im sure I could produce comparable results". I want to begin wetting my beak with taking my photography more seriously, with a view to gaining more experience and potentialy doing some small jobs on the side.

I feel I must be clear some things: I dont not intend to shoot weddings over night. I dont want to charge anyone for anything just yet.

I dont mind spending a bit of money to get my gear up to scratch, but I want to want to throw money at things that are not necessary. Right. So I'm upgrading my 450D, 18-55mm IS and 50mm F1.8 kit. Things that bugged me the most about this kit; small camera body with sometimes awkward control. Generally poor autofocus performance (im well aware of how AF works technically, so I use what I know to get by sticking to my centre cross point a lot of the time... I was even manual focusing to get my F1 cars coming through the corners etc). Small viewfinder is very annoying to me. When I looked through a 5D for the first time... I was amazed! Thats pretty much it, when I nail a shot on the 450D image quality is not bad, especially if good glass is used. Usable ISO is only upto 400 really, maybe 800 sometimes so I guess that is another thing im not happy with.

So what this has always made me believe is if that I upgrade, its not going to be to another APS-C body, and that I will buy decent glass.

With that in mind I heavily debating switching to Nikon with the release of the D600, due to the spec of the body on paper and the availability of their 24-70mm F2.8 at around £1000. In the end I bottled the switch to Nikon for a number of reasons; one of them being I snapped up the purchase of a mint Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L mkI off the TP forums for £800. This is me sorted for my main lens for now. In order to test the if I could get by with it on my 450D for the near future and first "assignments/jobs" (more on that in a sec...) I bought a flash so I could try it out. This week I took delivery of my Speedlite 600EX-RT which is... just an ETTL flash really. Radio trigger stuff will be cool in future when they release a cheaper radio slave flash or the price of the ST-E3 drops. In all honesty I could have bought a Yongnuo 565 or a second hand Canon 580EX-II but this means no need for pocket wizards for off camera flash.

So the 24-70 and the 600EX can take some nice pictures using the 450D. My biggest problem still is AF performance, esp regarding locking on the eyes. I always use the closest focus point, sometimes a bit of focus re-compose. Im not sure whether or not this is technique, or whether the few knocks my 450D has had over the years means it needs sending in for AF calibration. Either way with my current set up my biggest peeve is AF performance.

I might have my first bit of (unpaid) work on in November, a christening for some friends who dont have the money to hire a pro and would like some photos taken.

Now in North London, especially in the Greek community, I know word of mouth can be all you need to be successful with regards to winning work. If I do a good job Im sure Ill be recommended but this young couple to their peers for other such christening and maybe engagement jobs for me to cut my teeth on. Doing a good job from day 1 is important to me. I know from now I will not do a perfect job no matter now much stuff I read, practise I have, or gear I own.

I have a budget of around £1200 for a body. Which fits perfectly to the price of a 5D mark 2 from Digitalrev. I dont really want to spend the extra £750 required to buy a mark 3 if its not necessary. However I dont want to spend the £1200 on the mark 2 and then have the same unconfidence in the AF system as I do now with my 450D; feeling I have to second guess it and undermine the compositions I want to achieve with my photos just to make sure eyes are over focus points clustered in the centre of the frame.

What I want is a pragmatic answer (not opinion) by someone who has used both cameras, who can tell me if the 5D mark 2 is annoying with regards to autofocus - and whether the 5D mark 3 is that much better with regards to AF point coverage across the frame, and achieving accurate AF when selecting the focus point yourself.
Thought Id hide that diatribe in the spoiler tags to save people from whiplash when turning their heads away from such a wedge of text!





TL;DR?


5d2 v 5d3 pragmatic AF performance information, from someone with experience please.

:D
 
Last edited:
cokebottles said:
Hi guys.

Hoping to get some feedback from users of the 5D mk2 (and 5D mk3).

Basically here's my story (one Im sure has come up a fair few times on forums, and I'm well aware of the stigma it carries):

I've been into photography since I was around 8 years old helping my dad in the makeshift darkroom we had for a few years in our garden shed. Ive always had a camera of some sort since then.

Fast forward 2007, I bought my first DSLR; Olympus E-330 which was lovely but I soon became acutely aware of the Olympus system and the 4:3 sensor etc. April 2008, I purchased a brand new 450D and photography, in terms of a hobby, moved on to the next phase for me. Since then Ive taken the camera around the world with me. I've experimented with a few lenses by renting quality glass from time to time, and have ended up doing a bit of everything from landscapes, motorsport, portraits.

Here comes the typically cliché part of my post: Over the passed year or so, friends of mine have been getting engaged, married, etc and I've had to look through many photographers galleries. From time to time, I have done this and thought "Given time, Im sure I could produce comparable results". I want to begin wetting my beak with taking my photography more seriously, with a view to gaining more experience and potentialy doing some small jobs on the side.

I feel I must be clear some things: I dont not intend to shoot weddings over night. I dont want to charge anyone for anything just yet.

I dont mind spending a bit of money to get my gear up to scratch, but I want to want to throw money at things that are not necessary. Right. So I'm upgrading my 450D, 18-55mm IS and 50mm F1.8 kit. Things that bugged me the most about this kit; small camera body with sometimes awkward control. Generally poor autofocus performance (im well aware of how AF works technically, so I use what I know to get by sticking to my centre cross point a lot of the time... I was even manual focusing to get my F1 cars coming through the corners etc). Small viewfinder is very annoying to me. When I looked through a 5D for the first time... I was amazed! Thats pretty much it, when I nail a shot on the 450D image quality is not bad, especially if good glass is used. Usable ISO is only upto 400 really, maybe 800 sometimes so I guess that is another thing im not happy with.

So what this has always made me believe is if that I upgrade, its not going to be to another APS-C body, and that I will buy decent glass.

With that in mind I heavily debating switching to Nikon with the release of the D600, due to the spec of the body on paper and the availability of their 24-70mm F2.8 at around £1000. In the end I bottled the switch to Nikon for a number of reasons; one of them being I snapped up the purchase of a mint Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L mkI off the TP forums for £800. This is me sorted for my main lens for now. In order to test the if I could get by with it on my 450D for the near future and first "assignments/jobs" (more on that in a sec...) I bought a flash so I could try it out. This week I took delivery of my Speedlite 600EX-RT which is... just an ETTL flash really. Radio trigger stuff will be cool in future when they release a cheaper radio slave flash or the price of the ST-E3 drops. In all honesty I could have bought a Yongnuo 565 or a second hand Canon 580EX-II but this means no need for pocket wizards for off camera flash.

So the 24-70 and the 600EX can take some nice pictures using the 450D. My biggest problem still is AF performance, esp regarding locking on the eyes. I always use the closest focus point, sometimes a bit of focus re-compose. Im not sure whether or not this is technique, or whether the few knocks my 450D has had over the years means it needs sending in for AF calibration. Either way with my current set up my biggest peeve is AF performance.

I might have my first bit of (unpaid) work on in November, a christening for some friends who dont have the money to hire a pro and would like some photos taken.

Now in North London, especially in the Greek community, I know word of mouth can be all you need to be successful with regards to winning work. If I do a good job Im sure Ill be recommended but this young couple to their peers for other such christening and maybe engagement jobs for me to cut my teeth on. Doing a good job from day 1 is important to me. I know from now I will not do a perfect job no matter now much stuff I read, practise I have, or gear I own.

I have a budget of around £1200 for a body. Which fits perfectly to the price of a 5D mark 2 from Digitalrev. I dont really want to spend the extra £750 required to buy a mark 3 if its not necessary. However I dont want to spend the £1200 on the mark 2 and then have the same unconfidence in the AF system as I do now with my 450D; feeling I have to second guess it and undermine the compositions I want to achieve with my photos just to make sure eyes are over focus points clustered in the centre of the frame.

What I want is a pragmatic answer (not opinion) by someone who has used both cameras, who can tell me if the 5D mark 2 is annoying with regards to autofocus - and whether the 5D mark 3 is that much better with regards to AF point coverage across the frame, and achieving accurate AF when selecting the focus point yourself.
Thought Id hide that diatribe in the spoiler tags to save people from whiplash when turning their heads away from such a wedge of text!





TL;DR?


5d2 v 5d3 pragmatic AF performance information, from someone with experience please.

:D
Click to expand...

How about putting this at the top of the post so you don't waste other peoples time like you have mine.
 
a mkii will do the job fine litterally thousands of pros use/used them for exactly what your talking about doing, on the other hand a mkiii will do the job better! It's up to you to decide if it's £750 (more if you get a second hand mkii for sub 1k)

Loads of people will decend on this thread and tell you the 5d mkii focussing is utterly uselss and you will be lucky to get a sharp picture of a boulder 20m away stopped down to f11. They are of course exagerating.

Loads of people will come into this thread and tell you tht if you use focus and recompose at anything bigger than f8 all your shots will be out of focus. This again is an exageration.

Take all advice with a big pinch of salt, gear will not make you a great photographer plenty of people have shot great events with old 20D's and the classic 5D but thts not to say newer bodies aren't easier/better.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Take all advice with a big pinch of salt, gear will not make you a great photographer plenty of people have shot great events with old 20D's and the classic 5D but thts not to say newer bodies aren't easier/better.
Click to expand...

Great point. Im aware of this and have been holding on to it in my head. I know the 5D2 has been used to take a million amazing photos that nothing except skill as a photographer is going to hold me back from matching at first.

Im almost trying to put a monetary value in my mind what that AF system is worth using the experience of people who've had both and used both.

Thanks for your input :)
 
I really don't think you can put a monetary value on it as most people who've had an used both in a professional capacity and hardly going to be able to say I'm making x more quid now I have a mkiii or having a mkiii is saving me x quid because .....

Really only you can put a value on those things as nobody else knows how much the money means to you etc etc. My honest advice? If I was you I'd by a second hand mkii and use it on a few jobs see if you enjoy it and if the jobs flow then use the mkiii as a reward further down the line at which point the mkii will make a great second/backup body. You really don't need to spend 2k just to find out if you like the industry and if your up to it, of course if you have the money to burn spend it but I'm guessing the fact you asking means you would be extending yourself to reach the mkiii.
 
I picked up a 5D2 recently which I love, it will be a massive step up from your current DSLR. The centre point AF is fine but I'm used to focus and recomposing anyway, how many do you need to focus on the eyes eh? As others have said, lots and lots of professionals have used he 5D2 for wedding photography so theres not reason you cant.

I think the differences between the two are not so much for IQ but usability in a wider variety of scenarios, and again as others have said, Raymond Lin has both so ask him.

The last wedding I went to the photog was using a Nikon D7000 with Tamron super zoom and direct on camera flash, so I figure if people are willing to pay for that...a 5D2 with 24-70 will blow them away.

The most annoying thing for me is, having used a modern Nikon, the 5D2 doesnt handle shadows very well in post. Although I've found its high iso performance to be great, the shadow noise you get is pretty bad when pushing in post, an issue which i think still exists in the 5D3 to some degree?

Either way I'd be inclined to put that extra money towards a 35 1.4 L or 50 1.2 L from ******* or TP forums, that will be a nice setup.
 
Last edited:
Nikon have better shadow pulling ability/dynamic range, that's just a byproduct of the time they spent working on the sensor design rather than MP count and not much else can really be expected. If you expose properly it's not a problem and once you get used to it, it really doesn't matter, you just check histograms and compensate. You really should do that on a Nikon as well, you just don't have to.

As for 42zx... I don't know why you'd pair a 50 1.2 with a 5D2.. The 1.4 focuses far faster and is sharper. Lenses like the 50 1.2 and original 85 1.2 needed really fast focusing bodies to be really usable. A 5D2 just won't be able to focus them quickly enough to warrant using them over their slower aperture counterparts (though the 85L II is better than the original). When you're in 5D3/1DS AF territory then by all means, more or less forget about AF speed as a buying factor, but at 5D2 level it does make a difference.

As for my opinion 5D2 vs 5D3, I'd go 5D3 if you have the chance as it irons out every niggle of the 5D2 and is a legitimately high end camera rather than the 5D2 which mean that you have to accept slower focusing on some of the most desirable Canon lenses which, depending on your shooting, could miss you shots.

In a wedding environment a 5D2 is a very capable beast, just don't expect it to nail focus on little kids hurtling around at f/1.2,
 
Ksanti said:
Nikon have better shadow pulling ability/dynamic range, that's just a byproduct of the time they spent working on the sensor design rather than MP count and not much else can really be expected. If you expose properly it's not a problem and once you get used to it, it really doesn't matter, you just check histograms and compensate. You really should do that on a Nikon as well, you just don't have to.
Click to expand...

There is no should or shouldn't. You do whatever works for you with the gear you have. Camera's are not equal, there is not a one size fit's all approach. With Canon you often have to shoot a little hot to avoid banding. This means if the scene is contrasty you either lose highlight detail, or you have to accept noise or more precisely.. blotching/banding in the shadows. Having to check histograms is a PITA and slows you down/breaks connection with your subject and is a general hindrance.

Something like a D800 gives you film like DR. Like film, you don't need to lose the highlights if you don't want to. Just expose to the left by a stop and you get 4 stops of highlight recovery and zero perceptible noise increase in the shadows.

In fact the additional noise would only be like shooting ISO 200 instead of 100. Does shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100 really make an appreciable difference in noise?
If you want even more highlight headroom, ISO 400 or 800 isn't a big deal either.

In short, don't tell people what they should or shouldn't be doing just because it doesn't fit in with your mantra.
 
An Exception said:
There is no should or shouldn't. You do whatever works for you with the gear you have. Camera's are not equal, there is not a one size fit's all approach. With Canon you often have to shoot a little hot to avoid banding. This means if the scene is contrasty you either lose highlight detail, or you have to accept noise or more precisely.. blotching/banding in the shadows. Having to check histograms is a PITA and slows you down/breaks connection with your subject and is a general hindrance.

Something like a D800 gives you film like DR. Like film, you don't need to lose the highlights if you don't want to. Just expose to the left by a stop and you get 4 stops of highlight recovery and zero perceptible noise increase in the shadows.

In fact the additional noise would only be like shooting ISO 200 instead of 100. Does shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100 really make an appreciable difference in noise?
If you want even more highlight headroom, ISO 400 or 800 isn't a big deal either.

In short, don't tell people what they should or shouldn't be doing just because it doesn't fit in with your mantra.
Click to expand...

How about not expanding on points irrelevant to the original question in the thread so you don't waste my time, and others who are interested :p ?
 
I'd be willing to work with a 50 1.2 over 1.4 for the pictures it can produce, but I'd still go for the 35mm over a 50mm if I had to choose. I was merely making the point that he could get a good fast prime to go with a 5D2 with the money saved. Anyway back to the cameras in question...
 
I find it far easier to pick the right focus point and not have to re-frame to pick it on the mark 3 than the mark 2. Although that should be the case anyway given the many many more AF points :p
 
Having owned the 5D mk ii and used it extensively, I'd say go for the mk 3 if you can afford it as a good AF system makes the world of difference. Don't be limited in what you can shoot by a camera body as its just not the way to go about it. I want to be able to do everything and that lead me to a Nikon D3. If I was still a canon user and didn't have good nikon glass, I'd definitely go for the 5D mk 3 over the mk 2. Yes its more expensive and yes you have to save for longer, yet you'll buy once and never look back. If you HAVE to get a mk 2, get one second hand as you can get them less than a grand now.
 
The mk3 is not twice the camera of the mk2.

AF performance wise, mk3 is better but mk2 was fine, if you know its limitations. The best thing about it is not AI servo, tracking moving subjects, this has improved more for me than anything else.

The spread of the AF points is also really nice, nicely spread out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom