Canon 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark 3??

[JLRoyal42]

So i've been shooting non-stop music video/commercial work on my canon t3i for the last year/half. I really feel like i've come close to using this camera to its full capacity & I'm getting ready to add a full frame camera to my bag..

Now I understand, obviously the Canon Mark 3 is the better camera but my main question would be..
Is the Canon Mark 3 worth the extra $1500 at this point in time for me? Right now the Mark 2 is going for around $2200 on Amazon (body only) which looks like a steal to me.. Is spending $3500 + for the newer model worth it at this point?

What would you do?

 

[Ive Lotus]

The huge advantage of the MK III is the high ISO low noise feature.
You can shot at 3200 ISO without apparent noise.
This is very useful not only at low light but when you want to close the iris at maybe f/4.0 for a sharper image or some more DOF.
This feature alone makes the MK III amazing.

 

[RMC33]

Look around a bit more.. I got my MK3 for $2800 USA warranty.

Mk3.. not doubt. You are getting paid, make the investment and up your game! I shoot no video, but have heard people just gush about the MK3 for video. The ISO performance alone is amazing, not to mention much better video length handling.

 

[JLRoyal42]

You guys do bring a really valid point.. Best but has them priced over 3500 and after tax were looking close to 4k. I could most def get a MK2 and another L lens w/ that. Is the ISO difference really that much between the mk2 and mo3?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So i've been shooting non-stop music video/commercial work on my canon t3i for the last year/half. I really feel like i've come close to using this camera to its full capacity & I'm getting ready to add a full frame camera to my bag..

Now I understand, obviously the Canon Mark 3 is the better camera but my main question would be..
Is the Canon Mark 3 worth the extra $1500 at this point in time for me? Right now the Mark 2 is going for around $2200 on Amazon (body only) which looks like a steal to me.. Is spending $3500 + for the newer model worth it at this point?

What would you do?

Absolutely YES. BTW, brand new 5D MK III now sells for $2949 ... see this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html

5D MK III has far more AF points, better ISO performance, headphone jack (so you can listen to the audio while you are recording since you do a lot of video you know that capturing good audio is half the battle won for a good video) those 3 features alone are worth the $749 difference.
B&H is selling a refurbished 5D MK III for $2789, (which will have been checked over by the manufacturer by hand, inspected very thoroughly, diagnosed, and calibrated by experienced technicians, and could therefore turn out to be more dependable than a new item - which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol i.e by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt).
I heard some people in this forum claim that they got brand new 5D MK III for $2700 or even less ... so you may want to check those out as well.

 

[RMC33]

You guys do bring a really valid point.. Best but has them priced over 3500 and after tax were looking close to 4k. I could most def get a MK2 and another L lens w/ that. Is the ISO difference really that much between the mk2 and mo3?

I routinely shoot my Mk3 @ 6400 and have useable stills. I do not shoot any video so I can't say much there, but my standard event carry is 5dII with fast prime, 5D3 with either 70-200 or 24-70. I toss in a 600 EX RT if conditions apply.

 

[rpt]

5D3 no question!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You guys do bring a really valid point.. Best but has them priced over 3500 and after tax were looking close to 4k. I could most def get a MK2 and another L lens w/ that. Is the ISO difference really that much between the mk2 and mo3?

Clearly you have not read the post by RMC33 (who posted it 5 minutes before your above comments) where he clearly mentioned that he got the 5D MKIII for $2800
BTW, where do you live and who is charging you almost $500 in taxes?
All major stores are selling 5D MK III for well below $3000
So for $600 to $750 difference you are getting far better camera which is worth every singe penny. Besides, 5 years down the line when you do plan on selling your 5D MK II you probably won't even get 25% of its current value, whereas the 5D MK III can still easily fetch you at least 50% of its value.

 

[Drizzt321]

I'd vote 5d3 as well, if you're making money off of it and people are paying. As others have pointed out, online (even Amazon) you can get a 5d3 body for less than most/all local brick & mortar stores.

1) Reduced rolling shutter. It's not gone, but it's better.
2) Significantly reduce moire.
3) 720p50/60 modes, although 1080p is still only 24/30.
4) You can crank the ISO up 1-2 stops above the 5d2 if you have to.

I have both, and while MagicLantern is currently only alpha/beta on the 5d3, last I heard it was coming along well towards full support, although it's not there yet. I do have ML on my 5d2, and for video it can add quite a few good things, such as zebra striping, focus peaking, 10x zoom for live focusing (no auto-focusing).

If you really aren't sure, and you're in LA, I'd be willing to meet you somewhere for a couple of hours and let you play around with the video on my 5d2 & 5d3, just PM me.

 

[Skulker]

Without a doubt I would get the 5d3.

It's a cracking camera and well worth the price. It's mainly people who examine spec sheets who miss how outstanding it is.

 

[RGF]

Look around a bit more.. I got my MK3 for $2800 USA warranty.

Mk3.. not doubt. You are getting paid, make the investment and up your game! I shoot no video, but have heard people just gush about the MK3 for video. The ISO performance alone is amazing, not to mention much better video length handling.

Excellent advice

 

[JLRoyal42]

Thanks guys, looks like i'll be saving up a little more to get my hands on that MK3.. The ISO performance would really come in handy, and as mentioned, so would the resale value in the long run.

 

[RMC33]

Thanks guys, looks like i'll be saving up a little more to get my hands on that MK3.. The ISO performance would really come in handy, and as mentioned, so would the resale value in the long run.

Silent shutter is wonderful! Lots more customization on the buttons on the 5dIII over the II. I love the camera.

 

[AudioGlenn]

first off... don't buy it from best buy. you're getting ripped off.

secondly, get the mk3 from the b&h link earlier. the price difference isn't that much between the 2 bodies and especially for video...YES get the mk3.

 

[Robert Welch]

The other option is the 6D, nobody seems to have mentioned it. I know it's video features aren't quite a good as the 5D3, but the IQ should be about the same (aside for possibly worse moire issues). If the video features of the 6D are adequate for your needs, then it may be worth looking at over the 5D3. It seems to me, many of the advantages the 5D3 offers over the 6D are more for photography rather than video (increased AF points, for instance). So you may be paying extra for features that are of little value to you.

 

[Policar]

I recently upgraded from the Mark III to the C100 (and had a t2i before that). I rarely recommending waiting on a product that likely won't be released, but see if Canon has a C50 up its sleeve at NAB before buying because the C100 is incredible.

(And buy a Mark III over the Mark II at this point, but wait for a good deal. It's not that much better, but if you're a professional you'd do better being able to avoid skew and noise at high ISOs.)

If you're a pro you can likely pay off a C100 in a few months, less at the frequency with which it sounds like you're working, but if the C50 comes out and has the same sensor but is cheaper... why not?

 

[RichM]

I sold my Mk2 this past week and purchased a Mk3. While it has only been a few days, here are my far from scientific) observations so far:

• Significantly better high ISO performance with the Mk3 - I found 3200 about the limit of what was acceptable with the Mk2, and 6400 on the Mk3 better, with 12800 acceptable when absolutely necessary.
• Much better autofocus, with significantly more flexibility
• Better build quality
• Mk2 images seem slightly more "color rich", but not significantly

When I get a larger body of work to compare, I'll update. But so far, I think I got exactly what I was hoping for in this body.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So i've been shooting non-stop music video/commercial work on my canon t3i for the last year/half. I really feel like i've come close to using this camera to its full capacity & I'm getting ready to add a full frame camera to my bag..

Now I understand, obviously the Canon Mark 3 is the better camera but my main question would be..
Is the Canon Mark 3 worth the extra $1500 at this point in time for me? Right now the Mark 2 is going for around $2200 on Amazon (body only) which looks like a steal to me.. Is spending $3500 + for the newer model worth it at this point?

What would you do?

1. You don't need to pay $3500+ for the 5D3 these days! Heck, I got mine like a month after they came out and paid like $3200 for it and you can do a lot better than even that now.

2. If the moire/aliasing has ever bugged you then the 5D3 would fix that right up. (at least for music videos and planned productions you can do things to try to minimize it so maybe it's not quite the hideous problem it can be for others, perhaps; for me it makes a big difference though)

The 5D3 has nearly 2 stops better SNR for video since it uses the whole sensor to collect light for video instead of thin strips of it as on the 5D2. If you are shooting at ISO100 now it might not matter too much. If you are doing ISO800+ shooting it might matter a good deal.

It's not really any crisper though. And the DR didn't seem to take any much of a leap at lower ISO despite the two stops better middle gray SNR, for some reason.

(for stills the SNR is only a bit more than 1/2 stop better but for video it's like 2 stops better; although for very high iso and scenes with lots of near black it can seem more than 1/2-2/3rd of a stop better since it has less high iso banding in shadows for stills and even though the main noise looks only a bit better the fact that all the super dark part of the scene aren't junked up can sometimes let you get 1-2 stops out of the stills performance even though the SNR is only a little bit better)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You guys do bring a really valid point.. Best but has them priced over 3500 and after tax were looking close to 4k. I could most def get a MK2 and another L lens w/ that. Is the ISO difference really that much between the mk2 and mo3?

Best But(t) huh. ;D Maybe you have been shooting too many music videos . (OK, probably the QWERTY keyboard and it's t being dangerously close to y hah.)

Anyway don't get the 5D3 from Best Butt try one of the online cam shops (stick to reputable ones of course).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The other option is the 6D, nobody seems to have mentioned it. I know it's video features aren't quite a good as the 5D3, but the IQ should be about the same (aside for possibly worse moire issues). If the video features of the 6D are adequate for your needs, then it may be worth looking at over the 5D3. It seems to me, many of the advantages the 5D3 offers over the 6D are more for photography rather than video (increased AF points, for instance). So you may be paying extra for features that are of little value to you.

6D has really been getting knocked for moire though

Since it has moire I wonder if it doesn't line skip too? Does it also give you a solid 1.5 stops better SNR than the 5D2 video like the 5D3 or not? I'd think not but then I saw a few vague hints that it does improve SNR over the 5D2 as well.