5DIII or 5DII wait or get a deal?

[jbwise01]

A very intersting topic is now becoming a growing concern for many photographers out there. A lot of people looking to get into the FF market are now stuck in limbo. The price of the legendary 5DII is dropping, as the 5DIII looms on the horizon, what should consumers do?

Lets try to make this decision a little easier and look at this decision from a financial perspective, because after all money usually is the deciding factor in most purchases.

Camera Upgrade Costs: 5DII vs 5DII
5DII-$2199
5D3(X)-$2799
Difference: $600

Considerations:
IF the RUMORS are TRUE... and the 5D3 give you an effective 2 stop improvement in ISO performance that changes everything...

Lets look at some standard lenses lineups for FF..

Lens for 5DII
-Wide Angle Zoom: 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM $1,529
-Standard Zoom: 24-70mm f/2.8 L $1,279
-Medium Telephoto Zoom: 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM $2,149 $1,226 for non IS L
-Fast Telephoto: 200mm IS f/2.0 L (canon's best lens IMO) $5,699
Total Cost: $9,799

Equivalent* Lens for 5DIII
-Wide Angle Zoom: 17-40mm f/4 L USM $ 749 (f4 = f/2.0) ($780 savings)
-Standard Zoom: 24-105mm f/4 L $ 999 (f4 = f/2.0) ($280 savings)
-Medium Telephoto Zoom: 70-200mm f/4 L iS USM $ 1,131 (f4 = f/2.0) ($1,010 savings) Non IS L for $619
-Fast Telephoto: 200mm f/2.8 L II USM $ 799 (f/2.8 = f/1.4) ($4,900 savings)
Total Cost: $3678 ($6,001 savings)

Now, I know optically these comparisons are a bit of a stretch, the DOF is not equal and the ability to get the sweet spot of the lens' would reduce this capability somewhat, but that works both ways so really these are pretty fair. The cost savings are signficant
The 2 stops gained by the ISO performance is worth considering.

In the end this showd me that if I were stuck between the 5DII and 5DIII, id be waiting...

thankfully i don't have to make that choice bc i already have a 5DII, i will be purchasing the 5DIII if/when it comes out!

 

[Tijn]

Bigger apertures do more than just reduce shutter speed. DoF is smaller. Lenses with an f/2.8 aperture enable increased AF sensitivity, and they produce a brighter viewfinder.

Also, your comparison is a bit sketchy. Hey, this second set is $6000 cheaper - well yeah, if you include a $5700 lens in the other setup, that's easily done. I'm not sure how badly a 200mm f/2 is needed if you already have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

 

[MlQUE]

It makes sense looking at it like that but if you wait for the 5DIII you're probably still going to want the 16-35 over the 17-40 to get the most out of your camera.
That said I'll be waiting for the 5DIII regardless since I've waited so long and if I end up getting a 5DII now and see the 5DIII announced in a couple of weeks would be a shame I could not bear, plus having a 5DI makes it hard to justify a 5DII now that a 5DIII seems so near

 

[Wrathwilde]

Unfortunately the 5DIII has been rumored to be imminent since the middle of 2010... about the same time as I discovered this sight. I'm still waiting This site is probably the only reason I didn't end up purchasing a 5DII, been feeling the same way for a year and a half. Can't justify a 5DII with the 5DIII release so near.

 

[snyder17315]

I see what you were going for with the comparison chart, but a few of the "comparisons" are flawed IMO.

1. Unless budget is a deciding factor (and for this comparison it appears it isn't), there's no reason to choose the 17-40 over the 16-35. I understand the aperture point you were going for with the theoretical 2-stop improvement with the 5D MKIII, but those two lenses aren't in the same league as far as IQ goes.

2. Similar feelings on the 70-200 f/4(2.8) comparison. There are plenty of reasons you'd want f2.8 over f4.0 regardless of body ISO performance. Shutter speed and DoF primarily come to mind.

3. Why leave off the 200 f/2.0? If you had on the original kit, it should be on the second kit.

To me this list looks like more of a personal justification to wait for the 5D MKIII than purchase a current 5D MKII. I don't mean that in a hostile way, it just seems rather "apples to oranges" instead of "apples to apples".

 

[00Q]

The comparison doesnt make sense. You can never get the depth of field on those f/4 lenses.

By your arguement, I can go out there today, buy a 1Dx, and shoot with a crappy sigma 18-250 on ISO 200,000. 1 single lens overs all the zoom, and the 1DX means I can shoot at f/22 on all my lenses in the dark.

It just doesnt work like that. Would you buy a 1DX and shoot with the 18-55 kit lens in the dark on ISO 200,000?

 

[te4o]

jbwise, it is not very wise to save 50% on lower IQ lenses ... After all it is mainly the lens making the colours and sharpness and blurr etc 80% of the whole photo. IMO I could easily go with a 5D2 and a 200/2 when using the light properly, and not bother about new FF releases, UNFORTUNATELY I have neither,
So I am in the camp of the unlucky waiting in front of a still empty plate.
At least I hope that so many will be reading this site that the current sales of the 5D2 will drop... And stop.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Those rumors of gaining two more stops are misleading. The two more stops come from better in-camera jpeg processing. If you use raw, you have already gained about 1-1/2 stop due to better raw processing over the past 4 years, so it may very well equate to a 1/2 stop improvement for most of us.

Don't get caught up in the sales hype, wait and see actual performance. There have been no big sensor breakthru's, there is lower noise in the digic V processor, and tiny improvements in the sensors, but a two stop better sensor? No Way.

 

[Lim]

Hello Forum,

being a long time reader of this site I now finally registered to post this:

I own a 5D 1 since 2007 and always wanted to pick a MarkIII when it comes out, as so many others I would think..

Since a few days I'm a happy owner of a 5D MarkII. I bought it for 1670 € in Germany. This price, I couldn't wait any longer.

I'm amazed by the "new" features the MarkII gives me.. Video, wow, auto-ISO, the custom modes.. Also better ISO performance than my old 5D, and maaany more pixels 8) It brings my 70-200 IS II to new glory..

Also, there's the soon to be released Magic Lantern unified, which will add features to the 5D MarkII that probably even the MarkIII will NOT include. That was another argument.

Plus, when a MarkIII will be announced now, it'll probably be available mid-year or maybe even photokina and prices will be high for the start. Let it grow on the market a little, you can still sell a MarkII for a good price later again and buy a MarkIII in early 2013..

I can only tell 5D 1 owners that the upgrade to MarkII feels fantastic! And at a bargain price..

I decided to put the "saved" money towards a lens upgrade EF 100mm F/2.8 L Macro should be around the price difference between a 5D MarkII and a 5D MarkIII 8)

Thanks for reading and thanks to canon rumors but... I just couldn't take it any longer!!

 

[Mark1]

When the 5d11 came out it had ground breaking differences between it and the original 5D. HD Video for one was a massive differentiator as was an infinitely better LCD screen and live view. These are big ticket upgrades.

But what big ticket upgrades might a 5D111 have?

Hard to think of any. Yes the ISO will be slightly better, slightly better dynamic range, slightly better this and that etc but nothing ground breaking. The AF seems to be a big deal for some but personally I have no problem with the AF.

Will the 5D111 change the way you take pictures like the 5D11 did?

The 5D11 is still a marvellous piece of kit and will continue to be for the next 10 years just like the original 5D still takes great, top drawer pictures now.

I'm as excited about the 5D111 as everyone else but realistically it's going to cost a grand more than the current 5D11, be hard to get hold of one for 6 months and lead to many sleepless nights in the meantime!

 

[jbwise01]

Now, I know optically these comparisons are a bit of a stretch, the DOF is not equal and the ability to get the sweet spot of the lens' would reduce this capability somewhat, but that works both ways so really these are pretty fair. The cost savings are signficant
The 2 stops gained by the ISO performance is worth considering.

In the end this showd me that if I were stuck between the 5DII and 5DIII, id be waiting...

I did say this was a bit of a stretch and that the DOF was not equal. My point is that a lot of consumers will look at these figures and the potential for gaining speed on the slower lenses and see that money can be saved. really most consumers probably don't know about the 5diii so maybe this is a mute point all together. The 5d2 is a more than capable full frame and a great value.

 

[aeturnum]

I think this discussion dovetails pretty well with this discussion about 2.8L lenses and their slower cosins. The consensus was that the f-stop of the lens is at least partially a by-product of the general high quality of the glass. Looking at lenses as just focal distances with apertures misses many aspects that might be important to your photos.

It's also worth noting that people have used the high end of the available ISOs for years and produced great work. You can always buy the cheaper lenses and do more in post. Considering how excellent high-ISO settings in DSLRs already are, I doubt that one or even two more stops in RAW noise would make much of a difference.

 

[Penn Jennings]

Not to be a jerk but even if the 5D Mark III has better ISO performance, I don't know any one that WANTS to shoot at high ISOs. Thats something that you do when you HAVE to. You want the best image that you can get, which today means using the lowest possible ISO. In my experience, most people try to stay under 1600. I might be missing something but 2 more stops is nice but not a "game changer" for most people that I know. Am I missing something?

 

[chengpenguin]

Not to be a jerk but even if the 5D Mark III has better ISO performance, I don't know any one that WANTS to shoot at high ISOs. Thats something that you do when you HAVE to. You want the best image that you can get, which today means using the lowest possible ISO. In my experience, most people try to stay under 1600. I might be missing something but 2 more stops is nice but not a "game changer" for most people that I know. Am I missing something?

As far as I can see, if new camera bodies have better noise control at high ISOs, it also translates to better noise control at lower ISOs. For example, if 5D2's max tolerable noise control is at ISO3200, 5D3's might be at 12800. This may also bring more pleasant image quality to 5D3's images at ISO3200 as compared to the 5D2's.

It is not a game changer, but it's a good to have. What people are really looking forward to is a refined AF system. THAT, is a game changer and a head turner.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Not to be a jerk but even if the 5D Mark III has better ISO performance, I don't know any one that WANTS to shoot at high ISOs. Thats something that you do when you HAVE to. You want the best image that you can get, which today means using the lowest possible ISO. In my experience, most people try to stay under 1600. I might be missing something but 2 more stops is nice but not a "game changer" for most people that I know. Am I missing something?

As far as I can see, if new camera bodies have better noise control at high ISOs, it also translates to better noise control at lower ISOs. For example, if 5D2's max tolerable noise control is at ISO3200, 5D3's might be at 12800. This may also bring more pleasant image quality to 5D3's images at ISO3200 as compared to the 5D2's.

It is not a game changer, but it's a good to have. What people are really looking forward to is a refined AF system. THAT, is a game changer and a head turner.

For some, higher ISO capability means being able to get a shot, or not. You sre right, no one wants to use high ISO for the sake of high ISO, but when light is low, flash is not allowed, and the subjects are moving, you cannot have too high of a ISO capability. Just last week, at our school play (I shoot images for the plays), there were lots of scenes with virtually no lights and dancers moving quickly. ISO 6400 and F:/1.4 are no where near fast enough.

I had to throw out 90% of the action images due to motion blur, and those that remained were still a little blurred. If I had IS) 51, 200, I'd be using it for this type of event. I also took my 7D to a night time rodeo. Really fast action and very dim light. It was nearly impossible, once again to freeze the motion.

If you have a high ISO capability, it opens up possibilities that were just impossible with my 40D.

This photo was taken with my 5D MK II and 135mmL at ISO 6400, f:/2 and 1/125 sec. The actor was not moving and the spotlight was dim, but it turned out.

This is a motion blurred image. I needed a faster shutter speed, but could not get it without having a couple more stops of High ISO.

 

[te4o]

Exactly, I am with MtSpokane - it is a four year R&D, the Mark III or similar will be a lot more capable than the current one, it will not be perfect but it'll open up new photographic spaces which are now closed yet. That's why I advocate to wait the couple of months.

 

[Penn Jennings]

I totally agree that 2 more stops can be very useful. I simply question if it is really a "game changer" for a current 5D user? I always envision that the majority of shots on a 5D are of a well lit, static or slow moving subject as it seems to be much more of a studio body as compared to the 1D or 1Ds. In those cases, I don't see how 2 stops helps much. I could see 2 stops having a bigger impact on a 1D or 1Ds more so than a 5D.

Nice, yes. For a few people or on occasion it might save the day but a game changer? I still don't see it but I do most portraits, weddings and other people photography where I have a lot of control over the light via strobes, 580 EX II w/battery pack or by choosing the time of day. However, I'll be the first to admit that I might be missing something. If I'm missing something, I'd honestly like to learn what so that I can grow.

And with that, I'll return to my lurking

 

[Fleetie]

It is not a game changer, but it's a good to have. What people are really looking forward to is a refined AF system. THAT, is a game changer and a head turner.

For you. For me, high ISO noise is the "game-changer". I can easily live with just 1 AF point.

 

[jbwise01]

Well definately a lot of good discussion, I must admit, the lenses i spoke about would not produce similar IQ if shot in the way i described. As always, it is the photographers job to get the most out of their gear using good technique and vision.

Sometimes the lighting conditions are out of your control and when motion and low light come together, expensive glass and high ISO have been the only way to capture high quality images, with a TON of PP. I think there are a lot of shots and situations photographers may simply avoid because they know the chances of getting a grat photo may be slim. I think the extra stops which may exist could really give photographer that much more capability. Expanding the possiblities of what we as photographers capture is really what excites me the most about this new camera

 

[norcalniner]

Well I personally am about to pick up a 5dII. Coming from an xti, Im more than confidant that it will be a great upgrade in all aspects. Much greater than a jump from 5dII to 5DIII. However, what I wonder is, if this camera is announced end of the month. Will we see the 5DII dip below 2000 again? I feel like I should wait a few more weeks to find out..