5DII Vs 5DIII for my needs

[Lance James]

Here's my issue. I've been waiting, as we all have for the 5DIII. Now that its here, I am wondering if the 5DII will meet my needs and I can use the monies saved elsewhere.

I have been shooting my 30D for 5 years now and I am ready to upgrade to a full frame sensor. I have L glass so am in good shape there.

Primary shooting will be in good light either studio or outdoors. I am just starting to shoot for a book project and am wanting better resolution as well as IQ files to work with. I dont shoot anything of super speed so higher FPS isn't a requirement. Since the resolution didn't change much from the 5DII to the 5DIII that doesn't seem significant either.

I don't shoot weddings or much low light shooting so that's not critical either. No great needs for super high ISO. Am I missing anything else?

I know there are hundreds of you guys who shoot with the 5D so please let me know what you think.

Thanks for you help.

[danski0224]

If money isn't part of the decision process, I'd get the 5DIII.

Better AF system, better weather sealing and increased high ISO performance.

No focus screens, though. Those may not be needed.

[Wideopen]

As the old saying goes "Its better to have something and not need it then to need it and not have it" although you may not need the 5d mark iii upgraded features over the mark ii im sure youll eventually run into situations where the new features will help with those tricky af and hi speed shots. The new af higher fps and weather sealing comes in handy.

[prestonpalmer]

The autofocus alone is worth getting the 5D3 over the 5D2.  You won't regret getting the newer model!

[Christian_Stella]

I shot the 5d2 for many years... I shoot food mostly with lighting. I've noticed better color rendition on the 5d3, especially in the color green.  The ISO performance and AF has given me the confidence to take the camera off the tripod and quickly snap alternate angles after I'm happy with my more planned shot. Outside the professional work where I always do a custom white balance to a grey card, I've noticed that the auto white balance is far better on the 5d3. The 5d2's AWB is abysmal. The 3 is pretty good. And although many people have complained of underexposing, I am getting much better metering as well.

The 3 is at leadt slightly better in every way, no matter what you are shooting.

[PhilDrinkwater]

The 5d2's AWB is abysmal.

Can't agree with that. I shoot hundreds of AWB shots every week and they take very little tweaking, until you get into a particularly low light tungsten situation.

Compare that to my friends d3s and it's night and day as the d3s is truly dreadful.

[PhilDrinkwater]

OP: I'd get the 5d2 if I was you and spend the extra money on a lens which will give your images something completely new or save it up for something else which will help you more.

For most photographers: Photographer > Lens > Body.

As regards to resolution, do you actually *NEED* more than 21/22mp? In my last 3 years of owning the camera and producing professional work, I've not once - not once - needed more resolution.

[risc32]

i don't know what these guys are talking about, this is pretty clear cut.  get a mk2, pocket the difference. I'm starting to wonder about this site...

[tron]

Here's my issue. I've been waiting, as we all have for the 5DIII.

+1 for 5DIII

Now that its here, I am wondering if the 5DII will meet my needs and I can use the monies saved elsewhere.

+1 for 5DII

I have been shooting my 30D for 5 years now and I am ready to upgrade to a full frame sensor. I have L glass so am in good shape there.

Stalemate. You have L glass. If you do not need more +1 for 5DIII If you need more +1 for 5DII

Primary shooting will be in good light either studio or outdoors. I am just starting to shoot for a book project and am wanting better resolution as well as IQ files to work with. I dont shoot anything of super speed so higher FPS isn't a requirement. Since the resolution didn't change much from the 5DII to the 5DIII that doesn't seem significant either.

Stalemate: both are adequate...  5DII is cheaper

I don't shoot weddings or much low light shooting so that's not critical either. No great needs for super high ISO. Am I missing anything else?

Stalemate: both are adequate...  5DII is cheaper

I know there are hundreds of you guys who shoot with the 5D so please let me know what you think.

Thanks for you help.

Sorry, I do not think I helped a lot.

I am a 5DII owner and amateur who prefers to pay for L glass. Since right now 5DIII is not necessary, it is expensive and has some problems one of which is 100% hardware I would not even think about it.

You on the other side do not have a FF camera and waited a lot for 5DIII. I would suggest to wait a little more to see if the problem is fixed and generally let the real beta testers to do their job... and proceed accordingly.

If you need a FF camera ASAP then you could do with 5DII since the extra capabilities of 5DIII are not important for you.

[Bruce Photography]

I certainly see your point about the 5DMKII, which is a fine camera (I had the 5D prior to that).  But I've had it for almost 4 years and I'm tired of it.  I was wanting something new.  Something revolutionary.  I am a landscape guy that does large prints so I do have a D800e on order,  but I decided I didn't want to wait on Nikon to deliver.  The 5DMK III is a dream at high iso speed and low noise at just about any ISO.  The new AF is more like my 7D which I have used for birds in flight.  I came from a 10D to a 20D, skipped the 30D, then 40D, then 50D, then 7D, and then 60D to get the articulated screen for low level macro work outside before going to a field monitor using tilt shift lenses.

Now that is me, but what about you.  Do you shoot raw or JPG?  Are you up to speed on the latest photoshop or lightroom?  What type of L glass?  What are your subjects?  Do you do macro, tele, wide angle, low light, or wide angle - how wide?  City, people, or scenery? 

I hope you see where I'm going.  Without knowing more about what you shoot and how you shoot, I'm feeling like saying that a jump to a full frame anything will be quite a change.  Not to mention that you will lose your 1.6x crop factor so lenses that had worked fine on a 30D, may not fill the right focal length using a full frame camera.  Lenses that look pretty good using a crop camera can take a real quality hit on the edges of the frame on a full frame camera.

This is my guess and suggestion, buy new tech if you can afford it.  It may take Canon another 4 years to deliver the next generation of 5D.  In another four years, do you really want to end up being 8 years behind the tech if you bought the 5DMKII now?  Just for messing around shooting people at events I take my 60D because it is new, it is fun, and I'm not risking as much investment should it get banged up or stolen.  I like all my Canons but the 5D MK II will not be getting much use anymore except as a backup camera for the 5D MK III.  I'm really enjoying the new auto iso for interior shots.  Better color and cleaner images and better auto white balance.  It is a blast.

[cpsico]

There is nothing the 5dIII is going to do for you over the 5dII, I say save the 1400 dollars and get the 5d Mark II. I have one and it performs wonderfully in the conditions you have described. Mate it with a 24-70 and be amazed

[Lance James]

Do you shoot raw or JPG?  RAW mostly, a few jpgs here and there but all serious work is in RAW

Are you up to speed on the latest photoshop or lightroom?  Yes, current CS Suite for all software

What type of L glass? 17-40, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8

What are your subjects? Currently automotive subjects, drag racing, cars etc. But, I am moving toward doing more portrait work and will be doing more studio work as well.

Do you do macro, tele, wide angle, low light, or wide angle - how wide?  City, people, or scenery? Some outdoor shoots at drag racing events/car shows etc.

I will start shooting for two books next month on the 19th. Either way I would need to get the camera in time to learn how to use it in time for the first event.

Hope that helps a bit to know where I am heading.

[helpful]

I was reading through and about to reply that you really just need the 5DII and that there is nothing the 5D3 has that you need. For good light, nothing fast, etc., like your original post said, you don't need any features that the 5D3 does better than the 5D2.

However, as soon as you mentioned cars and racing, that answers your questions right there. The 5D3 can do that. As mentioned before, the 5D2 has an autofocus system that is simply incapable of photographing racing. I have owned both cameras and tried them almost in every extent of their capabilities.

So for the subjects you need to photograph you need the 5D3. Which is the opposite of what I was going to tell you up until I heard the word racing.


By the way, in your original post, why did state that you did not photograph anything of "super speed?" Car racing, especially drag racing is definitely super speed for a camera.

[takoman46]

There is nothing the 5dIII is going to do for you over the 5dII, I say save the 1400 dollars and get the 5d Mark II. I have one and it performs wonderfully in the conditions you have described. Mate it with a 24-70 and be amazed

I agree that if you do not need the additional capabilities of the 5D mkIII, then you'll be very happy with the 5D mkII.  I've been using the mkII for 3 years and now added a mkIII.  In short, the mkIII is everything I have been wanting but I still use my mkII in situations where I don't need the AF and ISO performance of the mkIII. On that note, I also agree with an earlier post that the 5D mkIII jpegs retain color a lot better than the mkII. But then again, I always shoot in the Faithful color setting 0,0,0,0 to ensure color consistency and edit in post. For what it's worth, I for one don't believe in investing in old technology so I'd say just go with the mkIII to future proof yourself for the next 4 years or so.

[prestonpalmer]

The 5d2's AWB is abysmal.

Can't agree with that. I shoot hundreds of AWB shots every week and they take very little tweaking, until you get into a particularly low light tungsten situation.

Compare that to my friends d3s and it's night and day as the d3s is truly dreadful.

Who cares about white balance.... You guys should be shooting raw, the quality of the WB from the camera is totally irrelevant.