EOS5D MKII OR MKIII

Some time ago I posted that I was getting an EOS 5D MKII, but would not borrow from the greedy banks I don't borrow money if I can help it. So short of selling the kids for medical experiments. (Not much call for it!) its been a long haul.

I now have saved the required (UK £) amount, plus some, £1600, unfortunately I have a problem/worry/concern.

The MKII has been out since 2008 (older ?) I am asking if this is still a camera worth having?

Pros, add ons, batteries, battery packs third party add ons are way cheaper than for the equivalent for the MKIII.
Lens thoughts, irrelevant they go on whatever I buy, Full frame obviously.

Cons it is an older camera, will it still be as well supported by Canon?

Is the replacement the MKIII SO MUCH BETTER? Anyone tell me why I should sell another one of the kids to get a MKIII?

Or is the MKII still a camera that will last me a good long time (bearing in mind the price is great at the moment) This would be my first Full frame DSLR I currently use a 350d which I've had since 2008 ish.

Currently I shoot most anything but like wildlife (close if I can get close) I don't do sport (yawn) so don't need ultra fast. I do like mainly travel / scenery, and some fast aircraft, jets.

Anyone help?

Obviously I'd like the latest toy, but is it that much more worth having? At almost 2 x the price of the MKii I'm not sure...

Pros, latest model, better focus / low light functions?
Cons, all the damn add ons are expensive, no luck in using old bits of kit like batteries - battery packs.

Any thoughts. Ta in Adv. Rob.

The mk II will do a great job with the travel and scenery and also with the aircraft. I have used the original 5Dc for this sort of stuff for about 7 years now.

As for wildlife though, the mk III will beat the mk II hollow. The older AF system in the mk II is essentially what was in the original 5D and it is a long way from cutting edge (it wasn't even that when it was introduced as the 40D had all cross point AF, whereas the 5D only had the centre spot as cross point. The mk III AF is awesome, I know as I have one, the focusing is a world away from the old system. Not a big issue with landscapes or portraits, or even aircraft, but with fast moving critters in low light it is the difference between getting a card full of great shots and a card full of crap.

The significant extra reach that you get with a mk III over a mk II is also extremely useful, not just for wildlife but also for aircraft etc. Plus you get 6 fps, much better weather seals etc.

I never bothered with the mk II, it just didn't seem to be a significant enough upgrade on the original (I was originally eager for it to come out and ready to buy, but when I saw that the AF hadn't been improved I didn't bother).

I don't know where you are looking to buy from, but I can recommend HDEW cameras in Surrey, very good people to deal with and great prices. They currently have the mk II at £1129 and the mk III at £1949 and both come with a 3 year warranty as standard, rather than the normal 1 year warranty. You can find them at hdewcameras.co.uk

sandpiper wrote in post #15564473
The significant extra reach that you get with a mk III over a mk II is also extremely useful, not just for wildlife but also for aircraft etc. Plus you get 6 fps, much better weather seals etc.

What is this "extra reach" that you speak of when comparing a 5D2 and a 5D3? Are you referring to better 'cropability' because of the extra 1.2 MP?

Yogi Bear wrote in post #15564785
What is this "extra reach" that you speak of when comparing a 5D2 and a 5D3? Are you referring to better 'cropability' because of the extra 1.2 MP?

Yes, that is what I was referring to, although I had it in my head that the mk II was somewhat less than 21mp. Must have been a "senior moment". So while the mk III does have extra reach, it won't be very significant with just 1.2mp extra to play with. Point taken, my bad.

For me though, the main reason for getting the mk III over the mk II is very much the greatly improved AF system, and the faster frame rate and better weather sealing are also a big plus, not to mention the higher ISO capability.

Hi Rob,

The above is the most important... which camera will meet your needs the best?

Well, for much wildlife (especially the smaller critters) and fast aircraft flying by, a full frame camera wouldn't be my first choice. For these subjects with a FF camera you will need longer focal length lenses, compared to your current crop sensor camera. That's where a switch to FF often gets very, very expensive, not to mention means a bigger, heavier kit to deal with while travelling. There are several current crop sensor DSLRs that would be a very significant upgrade from a 350D. Just a little food for thought.

However, full frame is nice for scenics, architecture, especially if you make large prints.

If you are committed to switching to FF, then the 5DIII would be the better choice for any moving subjects. The 5DII's AF system simply isn't as good keeping up with movement.

If you shoot RAW, between 5DII and 5DIII you won't see a whole lot of difference in low light/high ISO noise.... less than a stop's worth. If you shoot JPEGs, you'll see more difference, probably about two stops.

Shooting RAW, either of the FF cameras will be at least two or three stops better at high ISOs than your present camera than, about one stop better than the current 18MP crop sensor models.

I use 7D and 5DII together.... 7D for action photography (AI Servo AF mode)... 5DII for more stationary stuff (One Shot AF mode). I don't feel much need to upgrade to 5DIII, though I'm sure I will eventually. But, even when I do, I'm sure I'll continue to use crop sensor cameras along with it for their "reach", high frame rate and more. I do shoot a lot of sports, though (and I take about 10X as many images with a pair of 7Ds, as I do with 5DII).

If I could afford another body I'd definitely get the Mark II again and make my current one the backup. It's a great body and it has never done me wrong ever!

The other consideration is lenses. If your current lens lineup is composed of mostly EF-S lenses, they will need to be upgraded when you get a 5D of some kind. Therefore it may make more sense to get the 5D mark II so that you have more budget to allocate towards lenses.

Rob,

You mention batteries being more expensive for the 5D3 - but the 5D2, 7D and 5D3 all use the LP-E6. You can get cheap spares from PowerPlanet (I've run several on a 7D and 60D with no problems): http://www.amazon.co.u​k …TF8&qid=1359841​823&sr=8-3

You can also get the 5D3 for a better price by getting an import. These guys offer a warranty, and appear to have a good reputation (I have one on order from them, so I certain hope that's the case!): http://www.hdewcameras​.co.uk/

Either the 5D2 or 5D3 will be a huge step up in quality from your current gear - though as already mentioned, any EF-S lenses you have won't work on either.

From the tests I've seen, there isn't a massive jump in quality between the two (apart from the higher ISO settings). The really big difference is the AF system, which in the 5D2 is considered pretty clunky. The 5D3 has essentially the same system (minus some clever tracking hardware) as the flagship 1DX.

If your style of shooting is mostly low ISO landscape then either body is likely fine. If you're planning on trying to hunt moving objects (wildlife, kids) then the 5D3 will be in a completely different league.

If you're not set on a full frame body, then the 7D may be worth considering. It won't match the 5D models for high ISO/low light work, but the AF system is light years ahead of the 5D2 (but not a match for the 5D3), has the same crop "reach" as your current camera (good for aircraft) and will even fire off a faster burst rate than either. You should be able to pick one up for less than even the 5D2.

EDIT: I forgot to mention (though you may have already considered this); 5D models don't have a built-in flash like your 350D. Just something to consider if you use the flash.

In short. Yes. The mark III is better. From a bit if you shoot static stuff to a whole lot if your subjects move alot.
In fact he 5d3 is so good it clobbers the resale value of the 1dsIII professional camera. Quite possibly the perfect wedding/reportage portrait camera.

However no matter how amazing the 5d3 or any device is, it is never good if you are in a financial hole just to get it. I rather sleep happy knowing that my family is not a pay cheque away from sleeping on the streets. No amount of high ISO or AF greatness matters.
Coming from the Rebel XT to a 5d2 will be a great great improvements in of itself. I don't know your gear list, but if you don't have high quality lens, that would be your main priority. Great lens with 5d2 > mediocre lens with 5d3.

sandpiper wrote in post #15564473
The mk II will do a great job with the travel and scenery and also with the aircraft. I have used the original 5Dc for this sort of stuff for about 7 years now.

As for wildlife though, the mk III will beat the mk II hollow. The older AF system in the mk II is essentially what was in the original 5D and it is a long way from cutting edge (it wasn't even that when it was introduced as the 40D had all cross point AF, whereas the 5D only had the centre spot as cross point. The mk III AF is awesome, I know as I have one, the focusing is a world away from the old system. Not a big issue with landscapes or portraits, or even aircraft, but with fast moving critters in low light it is the difference between getting a card full of great shots and a card full of crap.

The significant extra reach that you get with a mk III over a mk II is also extremely useful, not just for wildlife but also for aircraft etc. Plus you get 6 fps, much better weather seals etc.

I never bothered with the mk II, it just didn't seem to be a significant enough upgrade on the original (I was originally eager for it to come out and ready to buy, but when I saw that the AF hadn't been improved I didn't bother).

I don't know where you are looking to buy from, but I can recommend HDEW cameras in Surrey, very good people to deal with and great prices. They currently have the mk II at £1129 and the mk III at £1949 and both come with a 3 year warranty as standard, rather than the normal 1 year warranty. You can find them at hdewcameras.co.uk

Seems like your talking about the 5d2 as if you actually used one...did you? There is no reach difference between the two cameras...and as far as AF goes, the 5d2 center point with it's six hidden assist points is really quite good. I find it better at tracking than my 7d. The 5d2 outer points are not so good.

I think people should stick to reviewing cameras they actually used.

sandpiper wrote in post #15564809
Yes, that is what I was referring to, although I had it in my head that the mk II was somewhat less than 21mp. Must have been a "senior moment". So while the mk III does have extra reach, it won't be very significant with just 1.2mp extra to play with. Point taken, my bad.

For me though, the main reason for getting the mk III over the mk II is very much the greatly improved AF system, and the faster frame rate and better weather sealing are also a big plus, not to mention the higher ISO capability.

Also the significantly higher price tag needs to be mentioned. For the price of a 5d3, you can get a 5d2 and a 7d...which is a better setup for wildlife shooting.

£1800 will get you a 5DM3 from Panamoz. Just saying.

Hogloff wrote in post #15565261
Seems like your talking about the 5d2 as if you actually used one...did you? There is no reach difference between the two cameras...and as far as AF goes, the 5d2 center point with it's six hidden assist points is really quite good. I find it better at tracking than my 7d. The 5d2 outer points are not so good.

I think people should stick to reviewing cameras they actually used.

I have already commented that I made an error on the reach difference not being as great as I thought, for some reason I was thinking the mk II had less mp than it actually does, so the mk III only has a slight reach advantage.

As far as the AF is concerned, I have used a 5Dc for 7 years and it has the same AF in it. I fully agree that the centre point with the hidden assist points on is very, very capable. I have always preferred it to my 40D on centre point shooting. However, I also agree that the outer points are hit and miss, particularly in low light. When shooting wildlife, I want to focus on the eyes and the eyes are usually at one end of the critter. That means using an outer point, or sticking the head in the middle of the frame to use centre point, which often means wasting a lot of frame area with empty space to be cropped away later and also cutting off the back end of the animal sometimes.

It is really annoying to have to cut off the critters tail end, when you have wasted space on the other side of the frame, just because the light is a bit dull and forcing centre point use only.

I agree completely with your assessment of the AF of the mk II as it matches my old 5Dc, my point is that my new mk III is worlds apart from the old "9 point with 1 cross type" AF when it comes to wildlife, particularly when you are in dull woodland areas with low lighting and need the outer points.

And, yes, I have used a mk II, I tried one out shortly after they first came out as I wanted to get something with better AF then the 5Dc I was using. After testing it out I concluded that the AF hadn't improved at all, and there was no real reason for me to upgrade, other than getting added reach (and I had the 40D for that, if needed, which is also better on the outer points).

I think you should get the 5D Mark II and keep all of your kids.

why not rent the 5D2 for a weekend see if you can put up with the AF, if you can't then you know that you need to save up a bit more.