I appreciate that this issue has already been discussed in various guises but I’m specifically interested in feedback relating to the Canon 5d Mk ii and Mk iii.
I don’t own a DSLR, - therefore I have neither a collection of lenses nor any allegiance to either Nikon or Canon. Having said that – I prefer the feel of the Canon and I like the simplicity (for a novice) of knowing what’s likely to be an excellent lens as opposed to a ‘good’ lens… Red ring etc. …Nikon lenses all look the same to me. I have chosen not to look at the 7d despite all it’s good qualities. I made this decision because I would like to get into full frame and as this is my first DSLR purchase I see the 7d as a temporarily measure that would only finacially further delay the inevitable (FF).
I have an interest in pursuing a number of photographic styles (from a hobbyist’s point of view) – landscape, architecture, general family and motorsports (I’m not expecting to have any of my photos published in F1 magazine, so I can live with the challenge of getting a few acceptable shots when I do finally have the appropriate lens(es) in the future).
So, my dilemma (given that I am not rolling in money and have a family that also have wishes) is - should I buy a 5d Mk ii and say the 24 – 105 kit lens or should I buy the 5d iii and say the 50mm 1.4? The second option is obviously more expensive but perhaps the added cost (albeit reduced from getting the 24-105 with the Mk iii) is worth it when thinking long term?
By all accounts the Mk iii is a much better camera and as I don’t plan to replace any DSL purchased for at least 6-8 years I feel that it’s probably more future proof than the Mk ii.
…But if I were to buy it now then all I can likely afford is the body and say a 50mm. With just this combination am I effectively buying a gold watch to go mud wrestling? With the exception of motorsports will that lens provide enjoyment for a year or so until I can buy more suitable lenses? (This is a big question for me!!)
If I buy the Mk ii (remember this is not an upgrade but a beginning commitment to photography as a hobby) then is this may be a disappointment. Will I regret not buying the Mk iii. Already I understand that the AF system is dubious at times on the Mk ii but should to accept this older tech in preference for a lower cost outlay and a better general-purpose lens such as the 24-105?
People say lenses are more important than the camera body and generally I’d agree with that but I want my camera body to me moderately acceptable for 6-8 years at least – so keeping that in mind is the body an equal priority for my initial purchase?
I first started looking at buying a camera (and lenses) about 2 years ago but the complexity of doing so and the complexity of lens and costs) put me off as became quite frustrating.
Any suggestions would be very greatly appreciated.
I live in Japan, but if you have any thoughts that camera equipment is cheaper to buy in the land that makes the stuff then you’d be very badly mistaken. Prices here are significantly above those found in the US and HK – that includes physical shops and the Internet retailers (especially amazon)!