5D vs 5D mkII -- for landscape photography

Hi,
Could someone please tell if it is worth spending extra $$ on mk II, for landscape photography? It would really be good if someone who has used both these bodies could list some pros and cons.

I'll be majorly using it for nature/landscape and portrait photography only.

Please share your experience.

Thanks

I used them both, and have been using the 5D2 for quite a while now. Besides the obvious megapixel difference between the two, the biggest advantage for me has been the addition of Live View and the larger rear LCD on the 5D2. LV lets me compose and meter a scene while using strong ND filters and polarizers, without the need to focus/meter first and then attach the filters (a great advantage when shooting landscapes). There are some other differences (updated sensor, etc) but you can read up on those in on-line reviews. But as a landscape shooter, these are what I find to be advantageous to me. Just wish it had a 100% viewfinder. Either body (5D or 5D2) will serve you well.

Thanks for sharing your views argyle.

argyle wrote in post #10956430
I used them both, and have been using the 5D2 for quite a while now. Besides the obvious megapixel difference between the two, the biggest advantage for me has been the addition of Live View and the larger rear LCD on the 5D2. LV lets me compose and meter a scene while using strong ND filters and polarizers, without the need to focus/meter first and then attach the filters (a great advantage when shooting landscapes). There are some other differences (updated sensor, etc) but you can read up on those in on-line reviews. But as a landscape shooter, these are what I find to be advantageous to me. Just wish it had a 100% viewfinder. Either body (5D or 5D2) will serve you well.

I definitely agree with this. I recently went out shooting with a friend who was using a 5D2 while I used my 5D. The big differences are live view and a great LCD on the 5D2... you get a much better preview of what you'll see on a monitor later which is a great plus in the field (at least for me).

Teeth wrote in post #10978980
I definitely agree with this. I recently went out shooting with a friend who was using a 5D2 while I used my 5D. The big differences are live view and a great LCD on the 5D2... you get a much better preview of what you'll see on a monitor later which is a great plus in the field (at least for me).

What about once the image makes its way to the computer, do you see an actual difference in resolution/image quality?

Caspita wrote in post #10986912
What about once the image makes its way to the computer, do you see an actual difference in resolution/image quality?

Can't say for sure (I try not to mess with my friends raw files). From what he has shown me, it looks like there is more detail in the more minute aspects of the image (far away trees, etc) with the Mk2 compared to my images with the Mk1 when we're shooting the same scene with similar equipment (17-40L).

I guess the resolution difference really boils down to what you are using the pictures for. Planning on posting most on the web and making occasional prints in a non-massive size, 5D and some lenses > 5D Mk2... at least this is the case for me.

Teeth wrote in post #10987076
I guess the resolution difference really boils down to what you are using the pictures for. Planning on posting most on the web and making occasional prints in a non-massive size, 5D and some lenses > 5D Mk2... at least this is the case for me.

LARGE prints

Caspita wrote in post #10987113
LARGE prints

Haha, if you're looking for this... you know the answer.

Teeth wrote in post #10987150
Haha, if you're looking for this... you know the answer.

trying to justify getting rid of my 5D and picking up the markII

Caspita wrote in post #10987191


trying to justify getting rid of my 5D and picking up the markII

I don't think that there is a huge difference to "upgrade" here. It boils down to if you just want the MII or not...

I used (borrowed) a 5dMkII for a short spell and didn't feel that I saw a tangible or quantifiable difference to make the purchase as a replacement for my 5d classic... which still produces killer images.

I must qualify this by saying that I use a 5d quite often as well as a 1dsII for landscapes - your situation may be different.

LarryD wrote in post #10988877
I don't think that there is a huge difference to "upgrade" here. It boils down to if you just want the MII or not...

I used (borrowed) a 5dMkII for a short spell and didn't feel that I saw a tangible or quantifiable difference to make the purchase as a replacement for my 5d classic... which still produces killer images.

I must qualify this by saying that I use a 5d quite often as well as a 1dsII for landscapes - your situation may be different.

I'm thinking of renting one and comparing it to my current body to see if I consider the differences to be justifiable or not. I don't have a 1dsII to fall back on.

My problem is that I rarely print smaller than 2 feet by 3 feet, and when I print some 4 feet by 5 feet...I notice the photo isn't quite as sharp as I would like it to be (hoping the increase from 12mp to 21mp would resolve that issue). In a perfect world I would love a Hasselblad or maybe a P40 back, but as of right now medium format is not a direction I want to go in.

I think that this is the best approach. There is a huge difference between the 4mpixel of a pro camera a decade ago and the 12mpixel of the FF 5d. I just have not seen an appreciable difference with the latest 18-21 mpixel sensors that are nearly as dramatic, if at all..

At your large prints there may be more visible detail when viewed close in... I rarely go beyond a 24x36 print.

LarryD wrote in post #10988982
I think that this is the best approach. There is a huge difference between the 4mpixel of a pro camera a decade ago and the 12mpixel of the FF 5d. I just have not seen an appreciable difference with the latest 18-21 mpixel sensors that are nearly as dramatic, if at all..

At your large prints there may be more visible detail when viewed close in... I rarely go beyond a 24x36 print.

The whole point is that the 5D2 offers features, beyond the megapixel count, that don't exist on the original 5D, which make shooting in the field a mush easier task, especially in low light and darkness. For example, I just spent six days shooting in Monument Valley, usually setting up in the dark for sunrise shots. Having Live View on the 5D2 allowed me to focus in the dark on an edge of one of the the buttes...zoom in to 10x and dial in the focus. Can't do that with the original 5D...the AF won't be accurate, if at all functional, under those conditions. The LV also makes using strong ND filters easier...LV will 'see' thru a filter stack, allowing you to compose, focus, and meter with the filters in place. I've managed, with LV, to see thru filters adding up to 12 stops of light reduction...can't do that with the original 5D either. If you're a serious landscape shooter, the 5D2 is a godsend, whether or not you take advantage of the added megapixels.

Caspita wrote in post #10987113
LARGE prints

Large Format

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #10993068
Large Format

As I mentioned above, medium format would be a direction I would love to go in.....just not now.