5Dii and better glass or 5Diii?

[adebrophy]

OK - so the mk iii is exactly what I wanted but like many others I'm struck by the price. I think that Canon is in business to make money so if that's what they know the market will take then fair enough on the slight uplift in price.

However - I've been waiting to upgrade from a crop (40D), flirted with the idea of the 7D, held off due to talk of upgrades and then did so much event (conference) stuff in the interim that I realised my next camera needed to be a low light performer/high ISO. Hence FF is the way to go.

And then I realise that if I save for the mkiii and a new fast standard lens (I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 that I don't think is FF compatible) I'll be saving the rest of the year. I could right now go out and buy a mk 2 and 24-105 and a few primes (for the low light) or a new 24-70 to try and cover it all.

I'm not a pixel peeper and want to consider real world performance (i.e. where clients don't really care on stellar IQ when they're uploading images to websites and brochures).

Are any 5Dmkii users out there doing conference work that find they're so frustrated by that model that given my choice now they'd go mkiii?

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Really, this depends how you work. If you don't shoot in extremely low light (ISO3200, 1/60th, f2.8) the 5dii's centre point should be accurate enough for your needs.

If you want to shoot with other focus points than the centre one, you really need the 5d3.

I wouldn't buy the 5d3 based on the high ISO improvements if I was you. It's about 2/3rd stop in RAW and if you don't shoot over ISO1600, it won't be that noticeable. P.S I shoot in RAW and processes in lightroom. That in itself has got me fantastic returns in terms of high ISO performance.

 

[adebrophy]

Thanks Phil. I was shooting a conference in RAW at 1000 ISO using the centre point of a 40D and had results good enough for the client (thank you Lightroom) but that involved a lot of muscle control and borderline shutterspeeds. So, going to 1600 on a 5Dmkii as per your suggestion sounds like exactly the use case I'm thinking of. Checking prices I'd probably have change to upgrade the 70-200 to a 2.8 too

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

No problem. I'd be very very surprised if 1600 on the 5dii didn't deliver better than 1000 on your 40d, so I think you'd do well with this setup.

I know we can all be very body oriented, but in many cases the lens makes more difference.. unless your body is the limiting factor I'd always recommend lenses first.

I have all the lenses I need and I'm struggling with the 5dii focussing in very low light churches, which is why I'm looking at a 5diii or 1dx. Otherwise, I'd keep the money and carry on using my fantastic 5dii!

 

[00Q]

I think a 5DIII has a positive future outlook. It will be sufficient for the next 3 yrs. As for the 5DII, well it is an amazing camera. And unless you need 10,000 ISO, then stay with 5DII and get yourself some good glass.