5D Mk. 11 questions

I've admired the Canon 5D Mk. 11 from afar over the past couple of years. A fellow photographer has one, very impressed with his work with this camera.

Currently I have two ASP-C bodies and an assortment of lenses...not a Canon system. I'm very pleased with the equipment of this cropped sensor.

I also have a Canon G 12 and a 430 EX 11 flash. Very pleased with this little camera, although I realize it won't match a DSLR...either a cropped sensor or a full frame.

Anyways..the Canon 5D Mk 11 and Canon 24-105 L lens is going for a great price up here right now.

It's still more than I would like to spend...but I don't deny that it isn't worth it.

Some questions though :

• Does the 5D Mk. 11's picture quality really exceed the picture quality of a top quality (say Canon 7D) cropped sensor DSLR at say 8 X 10 or 11 X 14 ?
  
• Wondering what the experience of someone who has had...say a 7D and gone to a 5D Mk. 11 ? Was it worth it or not worth it ? Why ?
  
• What have owners of a 5D Mk. 11 found to be the advantages or disadvantages of the 5D Mk. 11 ?
  
• How do you find the 24-105 Canon lens as a top quality lens ?
  

Friendly advice:

Mk. 11 ≠ Mk. II, Mark II, Mark 2, etc.

As for the 7D vs. 5D2consideration, I'd say you're probably better off with a 7D for the type of shooting you've described.

Eleven questions?

Low light, DOF : 5D II
Sports, Birding, Wildlife and above: 7D

kf095 wrote in post #13371724
Eleven questions?

Thank you for your valued contribution.

CanonCleGuy wrote in post #13371742
Low light, DOF : 5D II
Sports, Birding, Wildlife and above: 7D

I should of been more detailed in my questions.

The pix I take with the fastest action would be the BIF. But that isn' t too often. Mostly it's birds that are perched .

The vintage cars are parked, but I do take some action pix at the drag strip. However the cropped sensor DSLR I use there is an older model...good for about 3 frames per second in burst speed and it seems to do ok. I could be wrong but I think the 5D2 might be a bit faster in burst...so I'm thinking it might be ok ?

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563

• Does the 5D Mk. 11's picture quality really exceed the picture quality of a top quality (say Canon 7D) cropped sensor DSLR at say 8 X 10 or 11 X 14 ?
  

No - at that print size you won't see the difference (unless the image is heavily cropped)

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563

• Wondering what the experience of someone who has had...say a 7D and gone to a 5D Mk. 11 ? Was it worth it or not worth it ? Why ?
  

Don't have a 7D but know several who have. They seem to be different cameras for different uses. I know it's a cliche, but the 5D excels at subjects that don't move too much - people, landscapes etc; whilst the 7D excels at things that do move. Of course, the 5D can take great shots of things that move and the 7D can take great landscapes - but you'll find if you use the right tool you'll get better results more consistently.

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563

• What have owners of a 5D Mk. 11 found to be the advantages or disadvantages of the 5D Mk. 11 ?
  

Fantastic IQ. Great low-light AF (so long as you use the centre point). Fantastic low noise at high ISO. Great ability to crop. Malable RAW files that take a lot of PP. Nice ergonmics. Only downsides for me are the relatively slow burst frame rate and poor performance of the outer AF points - esp in poor light.

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563

• How do you find the 24-105 Canon lens as a top quality lens ?
  

IMHO - it's a great general purpose lens. It's sharp enough for most, has a very useful range, isn't too heavy (cf 24-70L) and it has IS. A nice piece of engineering if you ask me!

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563
Mostly I take pictures of vintage vehicles in the outdoors...landscapes, wildlife....birds perched, BIF, wild animals in the bush, etc.

As I said above, for BIF, the 7D will excel. I've taken good BIF shots with my 5Dii, but I'm sure I'd have done better with a 7D. The rest of your interests will be well served with the 5dii.

Lesmore wrote in post #13372316
I should of been more detailed in my questions.

The pix I take with the fastest action would be the BIF. But that isn' t too often. Mostly it's birds that are perched .

The vintage cars are parked, but I do take some action pix at the drag strip. However the cropped sensor DSLR I use there is an older model...good for about 3 frames per second in burst speed and it seems to do ok. I could be wrong but I think the 5D2 might be a bit faster in burst...so I'm thinking it might be ok ?

7D will give you a bit more reach for this than the 5d2. Are you in a place where you can rent them both for a week and try them out?

I sold my 7D.
IQ of the 5DII is definitely better than the 7D. Whether you'll notice it a the print sizes you ask is debatable. It's nice to start with an awesome image though.
I love the 24-105, I bought it a few years ago and have used it with 40D, 7D and 5DII. It's my most used lens.
I wish the 5DII had the AF of the 7D, but it is what it is.

Hi Les,

Lesmore wrote in post #13371563
I've admired the Canon 5D Mk. 11 from afar over the past couple of years. A fellow photographer has one, very impressed with his work with this camera.

Currently I have two ASP-C bodies and an assortment of lenses...not a Canon system. I'm very pleased with the equipment of this cropped sensor.

I also have a Canon G 12 and a 430 EX 11 flash. Very pleased with this little camera, although I realize it won't match a DSLR...either a cropped sensor or a full frame.

Anyways..the Canon 5D Mk 11 and Canon 24-105 L lens is going for a great price up here right now.

It's still more than I would like to spend...but I don't deny that it isn't worth it.

Some questions though :

• Does the 5D Mk. 11's picture quality really exceed the picture quality of a top quality (say Canon 7D) cropped sensor DSLR at say 8 X 10 or 11 X 14 ?

Maybe not at those sizes, but the work involved to get there probably is a bit less - the 7D will likely require a bit more PP, as its images may need more sharpening, f.e.


Personally, I like to print a bit larger, and the 5D II may well have an advantage in that case.

Some people seem to vacillate, some people go from 7D to 5D II, others from 5D II to 7D. It depends entirely on one's needs and perceptions. Personally I am not planning on going back to APS-C or crop, but I do have a second body especially for sports. When it gets dark, the light isn't too good, the 5D II doesn't cope too well with fast action sport with regard to AF. It is doable, but only if you can prefocus, I found.

Its only disadvantage to me is that it isn't a sportscamera, that's really all. Fortunately I don't do a lot of sports shooting . Otherwise I am totally happy with it. The VF is large and bright (no tunnel vision like most APS-C cameras), it has great IQ, at all isos up to 3200, and sRaw iso 6400.
Another great advantage to me is the availabilty of great quality true (U)WA primes. Those just don't exist for APS-C, and WA zooms generally are just not as good as primes in this respect. This is also caused by the fact that I am an old school shooter: I compose for the entire frame, and the corners of WA zooms, especially at their widest settings, to me are not satisfactory IQ-wise, while the primes are.
It also is very good at low light. I just love being able to shoot anywhere I go, handheld, and generally still have AF work for me at times where I can't even see anymore what is going on .
Finally there is better control over DoF. The difference in DoF between APS-C and FF is huge to me, 1.6 stops. I prefer to be able to play with that extra, thinner DOF I get with FF vs APS-C.

I have owned one, but sold it because I didn't use it much anymore by the time I went FF. I actually prefer primes. However, it is rated to be of high quality, at all FLs, although at the long end (90 - 105 mm) you may have to stop down 1/3 of a stop (to F/4.5) to get optimal results.
I found it a great portrait zoom on APS-C, but as mentioned, on FF I use mostly primes, and I had (still have) a full range of prime lenses in the same range which I preferred to shoot with. Shot some great portraits with it however.

This will work well with 5D II and 24-105L, no doubt about it.

Obviously that is a bit harder. Wild animals in the bush and birds perched are eminently doable with the 5D II, but you may find you need another lens for that. The 100-400L comes to mind, as this is a lens used by many for such activities.

For BIF you may find that a crop (APS-C, or APS-H) camera is easier, basically because you get more reach, that infamous crop factor. Most BIF photographers, and those who generally shoot birds, also often go for the "bigger guns" like the 500 F/4L. However, it also gets quite a bit more expensive.

What do you use currently for this type of shooting (and for the other types of shooting), so we may better advise you?

It's a pleasure.

I do hope you realize that the path you may be embarking on, is possibly rather painful to the wallet .

Kind regards, Wim

Yes I noticed a difference and yes the IQ jump SOOC of the camera is substantial leading to better prints.

paulkaye wrote in post #13372324
No - at that print size you won't see the difference (unless the image is heavily cropped)

Don't have a 7D but know several who have. They seem to be different cameras for different uses. I know it's a cliche, but the 5D excels at subjects that don't move too much - people, landscapes etc; whilst the 7D excels at things that do move. Of course, the 5D can take great shots of things that move and the 7D can take great landscapes - but you'll find if you use the right tool you'll get better results more consistently.

Fantastic IQ. Great low-light AF (so long as you use the centre point). Fantastic low noise at high ISO. Great ability to crop. Malable RAW files that take a lot of PP. Nice ergonmics. Only downsides for me are the relatively slow burst frame rate and poor performance of the outer AF points - esp in poor light.

IMHO - it's a great general purpose lens. It's sharp enough for most, has a very useful range, isn't too heavy (cf 24-70L) and it has IS. A nice piece of engineering if you ask me!

As I said above, for BIF, the 7D will excel. I've taken good BIF shots with my 5Dii, but I'm sure I'd have done better with a 7D. The rest of your interests will be well served with the 5dii.

Thanks Paulkaye...great info and it clarifies some of my questions.

Les

rick_reno wrote in post #13372393
7D will give you a bit more reach for this than the 5d2. Are you in a place where you can rent them both for a week and try them out?

Good point...and yes I'm in a good sized city where rentals are available.

windpig wrote in post #13372413
I sold my 7D.
IQ of the 5DII is definitely better than the 7D. Whether you'll notice it a the print sizes you ask is debatable. It's nice to start with an awesome image though.
I love the 24-105, I bought it a few years ago and have used it with 40D, 7D and 5DII. It's my most used lens.
I wish the 5DII had the AF of the 7D, but it is what it is.

The 24-105 has appeal with the 5D2...wide angle to mini telephoto...portrait. Thanks for your assessment on this lens. Another lens I like is the 17-40 L.

wimg wrote in post #13372477
Hi Les,
Maybe not at those sizes, but the work involved to get there probably is a bit less - the 7D will likely require a bit more PP, as its images may need more sharpening, f.e.


Personally, I like to print a bit larger, and the 5D II may well have an advantage in that case. Some people seem to vacillate, some people go from 7D to 5D II, others from 5D II to 7D. It depends entirely on one's needs and perceptions. Personally I am not planning on going back to APS-C or crop, but I do have a second body especially for sports. When it gets dark, the light isn't too good, the 5D II doesn't cope too well with fast action sport with regard to AF. It is doable, but only if you can prefocus, I found.Its only disadvantage to me is that it isn't a sportscamera, that's really all. Fortunately I don't do a lot of sports shooting . Otherwise I am totally happy with it. The VF is large and bright (no tunnel vision like most APS-C cameras), it has great IQ, at all isos up to 3200, and sRaw iso 6400.
Another great advantage to me is the availabilty of great quality true (U)WA primes. Those just don't exist for APS-C, and WA zooms generally are just not as good as primes in this respect. This is also caused by the fact that I am an old school shooter: I compose for the entire frame, and the corners of WA zooms, especially at their widest settings, to me are not satisfactory IQ-wise, while the primes are.
It also is very good at low light. I just love being able to shoot anywhere I go, handheld, and generally still have AF work for me at times where I can't even see anymore what is going on .
Finally there is better control over DoF. The difference in DoF between APS-C and FF is huge to me, 1.6 stops. I prefer to be able to play with that extra, thinner DOF I get with FF vs APS-C.



I have owned one, but sold it because I didn't use it much anymore by the time I went FF. I actually prefer primes. However, it is rated to be of high quality, at all FLs, although at the long end (90 - 105 mm) you may have to stop down 1/3 of a stop (to F/4.5) to get optimal results.
I found it a great portrait zoom on APS-C, but as mentioned, on FF I use mostly primes, and I had (still have) a full range of prime lenses in the same range which I preferred to shoot with. Shot some great portraits with it however.
This will work well with 5D II and 24-105L, no doubt about it.

Obviously that is a bit harder. Wild animals in the bush and birds perched are eminently doable with the 5D II, but you may find you need another lens for that. The 100-400L comes to mind, as this is a lens used by many for such activities.

For BIF you may find that a crop (APS-C, or APS-H) camera is easier, basically because you get more reach, that infamous crop factor. Most BIF photographers, and those who generally shoot birds, also often go for the "bigger guns" like the 500 F/4L. However, it also gets quite a bit more expensive.

What do you use currently for this type of shooting (and for the other types of shooting), so we may better advise you?

It's a pleasure.

I do hope you realize that the path you may be embarking on, is possibly rather painful to the wallet .

Kind regards, Wim

The cost....certainly a factor...although I tend to regard photography as my main and long term hobby....how's that for rationalization...

Your very thorough answer has lot's of food for thought. Thank you and it gives me a lot to consider.

Les