Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII

[MrKorney]

I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop.
I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot. People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large). Thanks for the help!

 

[c.d.embrey]

I've used a 40D, a 5D1, a 5D2, a 5D3 and a 1Ds2 in the studio (all paid advertising work) and their ain't much difference. Your obsessing over something that isn't important.

If you are taking a Workshop, shoot it the way they are teaching it. You may find that f/8 gives you a better photo than f/1.4.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.

...except, of course, for price.

So, if price isn't a factor -- and you seem to be indicating that it's not -- then it's a no-brainer.

That writ, studio work, where, presumably, you're shooting with well-balanced strobes at ISO 100 and f/8 - f/11, the only time you'll see a difference with any camera on the market today is when printing on a machine that's too big to sit on a desktop (or when pixel peeping). Resolution isn't a factor at desktop printer sizes, and dynamic range is a moot point when you can push a lever or position a reflector or whatever to tame the light to whatever it needs to be. Noise, of course, is also a non-factor at ISO 100. Keep going down the list and, again, unless you're printing big, only ergonomics really differentiates a Rebel with a kit lens from a 1Dx with L glass in the studio.

(Again, just to be clear: I'm assuming studio strobes in typical use and 13" x 19" prints and smaller, no significant cropping, etc., etc., etc. Atypical use of strobes, window light, all sorts of other factors could easily skew the equation all sorts of ways.)

Cheers,

b&

 

[vbi]

IMHO the 5D2 has better micro contrast than the 5D3 but there's no arguing with the other improvements on the 5D3

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For studio use, get the 5D MK II. Any improvements on the 5D MK III really do not help much in a studio.
Don't worry about AA Filters, there is not enough difference to worry about them.

 

[deleteme]

I have both and the difference is studio shooting is invisible. The greatest difference is in the subjective feel and handling.
The great advantage of the studio is being able to control conditions so the image will look its best despite the limitations of the camera.

 

[hyles]

I would go for the mkII and buy together a specific lens, like ts-e 90 or a 100 macro .
If you don't need the lens, i would the same go with the MKII unless you need to use the camera for other application.
The AF is not going to be important, i would use live view, all the same i would use the EG-S focusing screen that lets you see better focus accuracy and that it is not avalaible for the MKIII.
Diego

 

[M.ST]

I prefer the 5D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark III for studio work.

 

[Kernuak]

I do little in the way of studio work, but the MkIII does come into its own if it is a fast moving shoot. If you have the time to focus manually (especially at wide apertures), then there is no difference. but if you have to react quickly, then the AF of the MkIII is invaluable, due to the speed and accuracy of the AF system and also the number of points, which adds flexibility on placement.

 

[wickidwombat]

is the shoot going to involve fabrics? the 5dmk3 performs better in controlling moire in this situation

 

[BrandonKing96]

go for the mk II and spoil yourself with a new lens.
And in all honesty, both are going to deliver amazing quality shots. It won't make a difference if you don't know how to use either.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.

...except, of course, for price.

So, if price isn't a factor -- and you seem to be indicating that it's not -- then it's a no-brainer.

That writ, studio work, where, presumably, you're shooting with well-balanced strobes at ISO 100 and f/8 - f/11, the only time you'll see a difference with any camera on the market today is when printing on a machine that's too big to sit on a desktop (or when pixel peeping). Resolution isn't a factor at desktop printer sizes, and dynamic range is a moot point when you can push a lever or position a reflector or whatever to tame the light to whatever it needs to be. Noise, of course, is also a non-factor at ISO 100. Keep going down the list and, again, unless you're printing big, only ergonomics really differentiates a Rebel with a kit lens from a 1Dx with L glass in the studio.

(Again, just to be clear: I'm assuming studio strobes in typical use and 13" x 19" prints and smaller, no significant cropping, etc., etc., etc. Atypical use of strobes, window light, all sorts of other factors could easily skew the equation all sorts of ways.)

Cheers,

b&

Well said.

 

[hyles]

I would actually think about 6D, it's wi-fi function may be quite usefull in studio work.
Diego

 

[RLPhoto]

Doesn't matter. If anything I'd prefer the MK3 so I don't have I recompose so much.

 

[Canon-F1]

the image quality will be the same.

so for me there was no need to buy the 5D MK3.

 

[Badger]

It sounds like if price isn't a factor. If it isn't, why should he/she buy a MKII? I can't think of any real reason why not to get a MKIII.

 

[agierke]

the 5d3's focusing system could play a part depending on what you are shooting. if its still life then no big deal. if its people then the Mrk2's unreliable focus points off center could become frustrating. you can reliable use focus points off center on the 5d3.

also, after this workshop what kinds of uses will you be needing for this new camera? chances are, if your interests are diverse, the Mrk3 will be more versatile and useful in almost any circumstance. if you have the money...get the camera that offers you the most.

 

[Radiating]

I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop.
I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot. People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large). Thanks for the help!

You're seriously mistaken. The 5D Mark III has a much weaker AA filter with much more advanced technology that leads to around 13% more resolution JUST from the better AA filter. Also the highlight and shadow room are much better on the 5D Mark III.

Get the 5D Mark III, it's no question, at all.

 

[Grumbaki]

Doesn't matter. If anything I'd prefer the MK3 so I don't have I recompose so much.

+1

Probably the most overlooked benefit of the 5d3. Crucial when working at extreme low f.

 

[Etienne]

i upgraded my 5DII to 5DIII.
I find many more keepers with the 5DIII.
Even in the studio you will have better shot at capturing that perfect moment.

I think the IQ of 5DIII is noticeably better than 5DII in every situation.