Is 5dmkiii a good investment in the long run?

[lexonio]

I've been positively stunned by the great high-ISO performance of the new 5d after reading the review by Jeff Ascough - http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

The price seems a bit high, that's true, but I just want your opinion - I'm switching to FF from 550D, I currently have 24-105mm f/4, and 50mm f/1.4 by... some other brand For 3500 I could either get 5dmkIII or mkII + 70-200mm f/4.
But the main problem is that f/4 is a little bit slow when paired with mkII, and its high ISO performance is disappointing, so I won't be able to use these lenses (70-200 f/4 and 24-105) in low-light conditions.

So the question is, isn't it better to grab the much more costly mkIII while saving quite a good amount of money on lenses? I know ISO does not equal aperture, but I mostly do photojournalism so I don't care much about bokeh and DoF. Any opinions are appreciated, thank you.

 

[ed24]

I've been positively stunned by the great high-ISO performance of the new 5d after reading the review by Jeff Ascough - http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

The price seems a bit high, that's true, but I just want your opinion - I'm switching to FF from 550D, I currently have 24-105mm f/4, and 50mm f/1.4 by... some other brand For 3500 I could either get 5dmkIII or mkII + 70-200mm f/4.
But the main problem is that f/4 is a little bit slow when paired with mkII, and its high ISO performance is disappointing, so I won't be able to use these lenses (70-200 f/4 and 24-105) in low-light conditions.

So the question is, isn't it better to grab the much more costly mkIII while saving quite a good amount of money on lenses? I know ISO does not equal aperture, but I mostly do photojournalism so I don't care much about bokeh and DoF. Any opinions are appreciated, thank you.

I'm thinking about the same issues. At present I can't afford the 5D MK3 + the 24-70 and to be honest I don't think I really need it. I shoot video 70% of the time and to be honest I think F4 coupled with the improved ISO will work perfectly for me on a day to day basis. When we're shooting commercials we will always hire lenses in anyway.

Also, shooting video at 2.8 can be a bit of pain as the depth is so shallow. Either way for most of my work the 24-105 will work perfectly. I think £3600 for that kit is a bit pricey but still fair and justified. One thing I can't seem to find out is when it will be available in the UK?

I know you're talking about photography but I think our paths cross slightly on this so I thought I'd give my two cents.

 

[epiem]

Given the initial pricing...I would honestly just *wait*

See where things go.

If you are in desperate need, then I would probably pick up the mII and the 70-200.

But by waiting, you can:
1) See if there is a price drop
2) Save more money and get a mII and 70-200 2.8L II(which is an AMAZING lens)

We have several 5DmII's and they are fantastic cameras. As of now, we will NOT be upgrading to mIII's. The pricing for what you get is just not quite right.

Perhaps you might even consider selling off your equipment now and grab a Nikon D800. You are only in two lenses deep and could probably sell them for a decent price to offset the Nikon switch.

We have bounced from Nikon to Canon and Canon to Nikon several times and the "loss" is very minimal if any at all.
Just gotta be patient and list your stuff in the right places to get top dollar!

Good luck

 

[Kernuak]

One thing I can't seem to find out is when it will be available in the UK?

According to Warehouse Express and Park Cameras, it's the end of this month.

 

[lexonio]

Bah, the problem is we're planning a family trip to Europe since the 15th of April till the beginning of May, nad it would've been awesome to have a FF camera by that time. I think I'll wait and see how the price settles down, and maybe I'll have to go to the vacation with my old trusty 550D.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A new camera body should never be seen as a investment. It will always drop in price as time goes on. A investment is something you buy with the expectation that its value will increase.

 

[capertillar]

unless you're generating income from its use... ;D

 

[bvukich]

A new camera body should never be seen as a investment. It will always drop in price as time goes on. A investment is something you buy with the expectation that its value will increase.

I don't think he is looking at it like a financial investment as in the body going up in value. I think he's looking at the additional high ISO capabilities making f/4 lenses an acceptable speed (since DOF doesn't matter to him) where they would normally not be. An extra $1k on a body is less in the long run than getting all your lenses one stop faster.

 

[danski0224]

I'd get a full frame camera now and enjoy it. Sell it after the trip.

Bah, the problem is we're planning a family trip to Europe since the 15th of April till the beginning of May, nad it would've been awesome to have a FF camera by that time. I think I'll wait and see how the price settles down, and maybe I'll have to go to the vacation with my old trusty 550D.

 

[DJL329]

A new camera body should never be seen as a investment. It will always drop in price as time goes on. A investment is something you buy with the expectation that its value will increase.

I don't think he is looking at it like a financial investment as in the body going up in value. I think he's looking at the additional high ISO capabilities making f/4 lenses an acceptable speed (since DOF doesn't matter to him) where they would normally not be. An extra $1k on a body is less in the long run than getting all your lenses one stop faster.

+1 Lexonio, lenses will hold their value much longer (and may even increase), so a faster lens is, as other have mentioned, a much wiser investment. Lots of people will probably start selling the 5D Mark II bodies now, so you could get one for a good price.

 

[jcns]

have you thought about getting a 5dmkII and a used 70-200 2.8?

 

[EYEONE]

I agree. Looking ad Dpreview.com's high ISO samples it looks like you could comfortably walk around shooting at 6400. Or shoot at 3200 just because you can. Performance looks great. f2.8 lenses are a little iffy on my 7D because of ISO performance but this thing looks to solve that problem. I say it'll have a long life span.

 

[awinphoto]

A new camera body should never be seen as a investment. It will always drop in price as time goes on. A investment is something you buy with the expectation that its value will increase.

I don't think he is looking at it like a financial investment as in the body going up in value. I think he's looking at the additional high ISO capabilities making f/4 lenses an acceptable speed (since DOF doesn't matter to him) where they would normally not be. An extra $1k on a body is less in the long run than getting all your lenses one stop faster.

+1 Lexonio, lenses will hold their value much longer (and may even increase), so a faster lens is, as other have mentioned, a much wiser investment. Lots of people will probably start selling the 5D Mark II bodies now, so you could get one for a good price.

I would second the thought that lenses will last you longer in the long term, but the 5d3 is looking to be a very fine camera indeed... Your current lenses would suit this camera just fine, but only you can determine if it's worth it to your bottom line

 

[mjp]

It's probably going to be a fantastic tool that will help get you amazing photographs. It is a good investment in technology, as there are improvements from the 5DMkII. That said, the 5DMkII is still a fantastic camera that produces amazing results as well. Personally, I would go with the 5DII and pick up an 'L' lens to go with it - you'll not be disappointed. I prefer the 70-200f2.8 which, if too costly, you might want to consider the 135mm f2.0 L - which is an excellent lens; or another prime lens like the 35mm L. Cheers.

 

[infared]

No expendable item is ever considered an "investment".

 

[Z]

No expendable item is ever considered an "investment".

If you use it to generate revenue, it is an asset.

 

[7enderbender]

No digital camera is an "investment" unless you mean it's value as a money generating professional tool. There may have been a few cameras in the past that were an actual investment but those times are over given how much more or less disposable technology is now in there and how short the life cycles have become.

That is very different from "wanting" one and being able to use it for quite a while.

 

[lexonio]

Thank you for your replies. As bvukich correctly mentioned, by "investment" I meant an ability to skip getting f/2.8 lenses and getting away with f/4.0. I think I'll hold for a month and see what the final price will be once the market settles down a bit.

 

[infared]

No expendable item is ever considered an "investment".

If you use it to generate revenue, it is an asset.

LOL!!! now you are talking.... ( I always laugh at that phrase...."is buying _whatever_ a good investment"), I don't know what word should replace investment: expenditure, "use of your hard-earned cash", whatever...but not investment...especially with the turnover in the digital camera market.
Seems like a great camera, but for me and my use I am DEFINITELY just keeping my 5DMarkII. I do not need all the bells and whistles, I actually like it simpler. LOL!....What can I tell ya. $3500 toward some Apple Stock would be an investment!!!!!

 

[dswatson83]

I like to think of it this way. Any camera you get has an initial $250 drop in value when you open the box because now it's used. After that, these things only loose between an additional $250-500 over the next 3 years. You could resell in 3 years for over $2700 unless Canon decides they over priced this model.

If you got a 3 year old mark II 6 months ago at $2300 (which would have been a good price), you loose the same $250 once you open the box because its used, and in 3 years your camera will loose alot of value. A 6 year old Mark II will be worth less than $1000 most likely contributing to over $1000 in lost value.

If you can in any way afford the initial investment (which you can get back any time you want to sell your body and get out of photography), you will loose less money purchasing a new body every 3-4 years when a new model comes out than purchasing a 3-4 year old model at a discount and upgrading that with another 3-4 year old model 3 years later.