Yes all EF lens work on all Canon EOS cameras. I am not sure why you would want to buy a 5D II or even a 5D III as your first DSLR camera, get a rebel model or a 60D which has many more auto modes and use the money on the lens which is much more important.
If you can afford the mark III then you will benefit from the additional video modes time sync, processing speed and headphone jack, but really the mark II is all anyone will need for processional video. Remember you can not auto focus with these cameras in video.
I have 7D because it is better for action and sport shooting. I also shoot weddings sometimes and it is nice to have two cameras just in case. I will be doing more lens videos shortly
You have a solid range of lens there, just keep in mind that you will need to replace the 10-22 for a 16-35 to fit the full frame camera if you still want a wide zoom. That might be a budget consideration before you get the 5D III. I would suggest however you get the 6D which is just a bit more than the 5DII but has most of the new features. I will be reviewing the 6D in about a week
I shoot a lot of food photography with the 50mm /1.2 or 1.4 so the 1.8 will do a great job as well. You will find a macro lens will also be useful for closer shots as well as 24 or 35mm lens.
The best thing about full frame is that it allows use of lens like the 14mm and 16mm as they were designed. The focus system is the biggest improvement for me but with that said, I used the Mark II for 3 years and it was fine as well. Quality of lens is still much more important. If you can afford the Mark III and you have great lens already then YES, if you have only average lens, then I say get better lens before the a better camera. Good luck!
I have never experienced under-exposure on the 5D II and I would expect that they would have corrected any issues like that with one of the many BIOS updates released for that model over the years. I don't think that is a concern. Frankly I never had any issues with the 5D II and it remains an excellent camera. Lens correction can managed in PS if required. The 5D III adds a bunch of nice to have features but for most people can live without them, well at least until the price drops about $1000
if you are to have just one lens the 24-105 is the one to go for however it does everything well but nothing amazing. I would suggest if you can manage it you also get one or two primes to get those low light and beautiful background blur (DOF) shots. The 50mm 1.8 is the most cost cost effective but the 85mm 1.8 would get much better results.
For sports or any outside fast moving shots I still prefer the 7D over 5D II or even the 5D III. It has little higher FPS and great focusing. If you are thinking of video then I think you should consider the xf100 or xf300, simply because the DSLR can not autofocus on moving subjects. I have an xf100 and it is excellent. The XF300 gives better low light and background blur however if you can afford it.
I agree with you, the 17-40 would be a better fit with that camera, you would use the wide a lot more than the zoom particularly if you have the 70-200 already. I own both these lens and they are both excellent but the 24-105 is not wide enough for general purpose on anything but full frame. $200 cheaper as well : D
I have been trying to get back to this video and comment since I did not do it when I watched it 10 years ago. Got the mark ii and still running strong! 🤙🏼
The 1D C is for professional cinematography and in particular the new 4K standard and as such is priced in the +$10,000 range. Where as the 1D X is professional consumer camera that can shot video but its real strength is sports and action photography. I don't own either of these cameras but I would love to have the 1D C. I have no need for a 1D X
got refurbished 5D II for $1407 direct from Canon, free shipping, It was as good as brand new ... better deal than on ebay. I used the Canon Loyalty Program, just sent a very old broken canon film point and shoot to get the 20% off.
That can be repaired, have local camera shop send to Canon. I had simlar problem with a 40D and they fixed it for $180. I would get them to quote repair first. Good luck.
I agree, while it would be great to get a real cinematography camera XF305 or C100 for example the starting price is $6-7k where you can get the same or better video quality with the 5D or 6D for $2k. Not as easy to use but gets the results. : )
08:11 , sure, we see improvement in noise, but decay in sharpness. you can read the letters on the watch with the 5d2, while you can't with the 5d3. what we are seeing is a default noise reduction algorythm i think. i wouldn't call that an improvement.
Your best equivalent replacement would be 17-55mm 2.8. It's not L lens in terms of build quality but the optical/image quality definitely is up there. But if you plan to move to full frame slr soon, then you should save money for the up coming 24-70mm 2.8 L II (mark II), cost = $2299. The MTF chart suggests it is likely as sharp as the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II which is insanely sharp. The sharpness maybe as sharp or sharper than prime lenses.
The 5D3 is an improvement but at what cost? I know many professionals who use the 5D2 despite its older auto focus system and are very happy. Last week I attended a wedding, the photographer used a 5D2 the two video guys both used 5D2 each, all of them said the new 5D3 was too expensive - after all with the typical cost for wedding photos coming down these guys have to try to cover more weddings (which are also reducing) just to stand still. Good video -thanks for posting
Thanks Nick, nice video, I think I will get a used canon 5d mark ii. I have a canon 60 D, which i really like, but I want to get a full frame camera. Thanks again for the advice.
depends on how big the church is and how close you want to walk up to the bride and groom. if you think you can get up to 5-8 feet of where they are doing their vows, you might wanna check out 24-70mm, 2.8. and instead of a steadicam search for a generic shoulder rig. steadicam merlin can run up to $800, but a cheap shoulder rig with the same purpose can save you $500+ more, for maybe a second lens, like for portraits or something. (best of luck with your purchase/endeavors)
For video everyone... it's basically the same thing. 1080p FULL HD. When it comes to sharpness, it's all about the lens and f-number you are at (most lenses have a "sweet spot" and it's generally f/8. Get a prime lens. Less glass is a better thing for the image than a zoom lens. Zeiss lenses are pretty amazing because it's arguably some of the best glass used for primes. Sure the MarkIII is updated in speed at performance but the MarkII and the III handle video the same... It's the GLASS used.
I thought I'd share my input as well. I first started with a 7D, then eventually added the 5D II to my collection. The lack of AF points and just the sorry AF accuracy on the 5D II do hurt some shots on occasion, however the benefits of then FF sensor in comparison to the still beautiful APS-C sensor on the 7D is significant. The 5D III basically adds the benefits of the 7D, with the 5D II, but the cost increase is a bit too much for me to justify upgrading to it. Just my two cents.
Thanks for the video, I'm stuck between the two right now and the low light is extremely important to me. That could end up ,being the deciding factor.
Well done comparison. The price of the MkII just keeps dropping, now about half the price of the MkIII. It has been the workhorse for many pros around the world, so why would it not be good enough for amateurs?
A 1100D with a even the 60mm macro would out perform a 5D II with cheap lens every time. The lens is much more important than the camera. Take a look at my Macro lens review. Thanks
Folks I got 5D Mark III recently and if you have money for Mark III - get one... I'm not making any videos so far but I know that video performance is better and Canon did very good job with ISO...Mark III is performing much better with high ISO in low light too.
hey... it's your money... go for it. I am cool with my 5d mark II that I bought in december of last year while it was on promotion ($2700 for the kit & $1960 for the 70-200 F2.8 II..$425 for 580exII each). there are quite a few tests that say the 5d mark II bests the mark III in noise and resolution. I believe it is the same sensor just with a different processor and firmware to utilise the sensor in a different way. Kai (from Digitalrev) said something similar in a video review of the mark III.
I enjoyed your review and think bringing in the 7d for comparison works well. However, it seems to me you missed a good piece of advice. The mk ii is a fantastic camera and the upgrades as you say are not that significant. My advice would be to keep your mk ii for portrait work etc (or buy a second hand one if it's your first 5d), and buy a 7d for sports photography etc (i would not use the mk ii or mk iii due to the much lower shoot speed). This is good advice unless the buyer has cash to burn
Honestly I can not see much if any difference in image quality at this point. There are people on the web claiming there is but not that I can make out so far.
The Mark II's low light capabilities is still killer. I haven't been doing much reading on the 5D III, but if it's even the slightest bit better, it's still worth it. Of course, if you are having trouble shelling out the $3K for the body, then the camera isn't for you. But if this is not only your passion but also a profession, and you already have a collection of L glass, then it is no doubt worth it. Now I just need to see how much I can get for the 7D and 5D II I own.
I live in Norway and here the 5D mark II has a sales price of US $2171,40 today (mai 2012) while the 5D mark III has a prohibitively sale price of US $4676,20!!! So Im staying with my mark II until mark IV comes out, if Im not changing to hasselblad by then. :P
Mark II is sharper in the image than the Mark III, look at the text written around in the watch. Yet it remains more noisier. Mark III's image also seems blurry to me, almost like its handheld with a low shutter speed or overly Noise Reduced. Then again, this might just be one of those out of focus things. It can happen to everone :/
by the way video quality has been improved on mark III: less moire and noise, also sharpens better in post. Tested by gurus like: Phillip Boom and other film makers.
I also think that one could do a whole lotta of good with the MKII & a good set of glass but then again, Ken Rockwell claims that the MKIII doesn't require all that expensive L glass because now it has CA correction. I do agree with the fact that it is a lot of money, whether it's on sale or not. The 7D is a great camera as well but can't handle the noise the MKIII can but then again, I hardly shoot in low light.
the picture quality on the mk3 is about 1 stop better in low light on high iso, for anything else the differences(i-q mk2 vs mk3) are too little to notice (video&stills) the mk3 still lacks the 1080p60 video mode and it still has no usable auto-focus in video-mode. In my opinion the only reason to pay the 1000$ premium on the mk3 is because of its 61point professional grade AF-system, which really is awesome (but really necessary only for action & sports) mk2-focus feels sluggish in comparison.
using nikon & canon gear means you need to buy all the lenses & accessories twice.. it could be worth it if you're a professional & really need the best quality. Consider that those 2k you are spending on a new canon 5d2 body could pay for a couple of pro-lenses for your existing nikon gear./ For video also look at the sony alpha bodies, which feature a really nice autofocus in video mode, however the sony's aren't as good in low light as canon or nikon
I think the 5D-3 is a better buy from someone that is coming from an older model than a 5D-2 and wants to upgrade. The jump from the 5D-1 to the 5D-2 was huge! This is just not the case with the 5D-3, especially in the IQ department. The 5D-3 does offer a much better focusing system though. One similar to that of the 7D. I would say the 5D-3 is like a 5D-2 with the 7D focusing and bells and whistles. Am i jumping to it from the 5D-2? Nope, I'm waiting this one out. Not worth it IMO...
nice review, canon wants too much $ for the new mark III. Image quality in raw almost no difference to mark II, depends what kind of photography anyone is doing: so the new features might be a must. For real fast action 7d is still better with 8fps. I shoot with 4 canon dslrs, none is perfect and never will.
Very little positive said for mark ii. I find little difference in image quality. I'm keeping my mark iii. But I'm also keeping my mark ii for backup instead of selling it.
When I was researching my 7D and then my 5D Mark III, you'll always find someone somewhere that has a problem with a camera, doesn't matter what it is, especially on forums. Someone has a problem of some kid with every camera somewhere in the world! I say go for it, take a chance, the odds are very much in your favour that you'll get a camera that works just fine!
Well you have the same watch as mine so you're clearly awesome. Upgrading to 5DIII from the 7D. Thanks for the review. Can you clarify that the Wi-Fi is internal as standard & not just ÉYE-Fi' enabled like I was told. (Jack @ Jessops in Leeds UK said this if anyone wants to go correct him)
Switching to A7r from 7D, I do miss the layout and ease of use of Canon bodies though. Don't like the 5D2, the thumb grip is just weird, too broad and not grippy at all.
I would ask, do you even miss shots with your 500D because of the AF system? If no, then I would get the MKII. All the savings can go towards EF lenses.
Thanks Nick...I am contemplating moving to full frame...I do a lot of outdoor action shots with dogs and kids...Is the focus system that much better for me to make the leap to the Mark lll?
At the moment I got the 500D and I have plans to buy a full frame camera, I might get a mkII "cheap" but I'm thinking of if I should get a new mkIII instead cos the autofocus system? Will it be worth the extra money? It will get quite expensive for since only 1 of my lenses will work (50mm).
I was told the MK 3 is better for video. I'm not sure but I think it might have time code? I have NEVER used time code and don't know anyone who has. Do you think the MK 3 would be worth it if your using it mainly for video?
Hi! Does anyone know if Canon has fixed the "soft focus issues" for photos?? I'm very interested in buying a 5D II, but some feedback that I read from Canon user's makes me think twice about it! I particulary have read about "the Focus screen that fall off" & "Soft focus photos"..... ANY answer will help. Thanks! :-)
Those ISO images cant be right. I'll bet the noise reduction is turned sky high on the 5D3 and its turned off on the 5D2. In the 5D3 image there is also a big loss in detail wich suggest that I'm right about this.
Thanks for sharing. While the ISO performance and AF are obvious enhancements to the mark iii, how do you find the image quality compare to the mark ii (e.g. can you distinguish a better image quality in the mark iii)? Cheers
The fact that this review is still so useful is great
Great video. Appreciate the time you took to create this and the features you shared. Great job!
Yes all EF lens work on all Canon EOS cameras. I am not sure why you would want to buy a 5D II or even a 5D III as your first DSLR camera, get a rebel model or a 60D which has many more auto modes and use the money on the lens which is much more important.
If you can afford the mark III then you will benefit from the additional video modes time sync, processing speed and headphone jack, but really the mark II is all anyone will need for processional video. Remember you can not auto focus with these cameras in video.
I have 7D because it is better for action and sport shooting. I also shoot weddings sometimes and it is nice to have two cameras just in case. I will be doing more lens videos shortly
You have a solid range of lens there, just keep in mind that you will need to replace the 10-22 for a 16-35 to fit the full frame camera if you still want a wide zoom. That might be a budget consideration before you get the 5D III. I would suggest however you get the 6D which is just a bit more than the 5DII but has most of the new features. I will be reviewing the 6D in about a week
I shoot a lot of food photography with the 50mm /1.2 or 1.4 so the 1.8 will do a great job as well. You will find a macro lens will also be useful for closer shots as well as 24 or 35mm lens.
Thank you for taking the time out to reply to me. I appreciate your advice and will keep it in mind when I am ready to purchase. All good things!
Completely agree. The skill of the photographer and the glass make the difference not the camera.
The best thing about full frame is that it allows use of lens like the 14mm and 16mm as they were designed. The focus system is the biggest improvement for me but with that said, I used the Mark II for 3 years and it was fine as well. Quality of lens is still much more important. If you can afford the Mark III and you have great lens already then YES, if you have only average lens, then I say get better lens before the a better camera. Good luck!
I have never experienced under-exposure on the 5D II and I would expect that they would have corrected any issues like that with one of the many BIOS updates released for that model over the years. I don't think that is a concern. Frankly I never had any issues with the 5D II and it remains an excellent camera. Lens correction can managed in PS if required. The 5D III adds a bunch of nice to have features but for most people can live without them, well at least until the price drops about $1000
if you are to have just one lens the 24-105 is the one to go for however it does everything well but nothing amazing. I would suggest if you can manage it you also get one or two primes to get those low light and beautiful background blur (DOF) shots. The 50mm 1.8 is the most cost cost effective but the 85mm 1.8 would get much better results.
That is an okay deal, Amazon and Ebay often have the 5D II with 24-105 f/4 L new at $2,449.00 keep an eye out for that. (search Beach Camera)
For sports or any outside fast moving shots I still prefer the 7D over 5D II or even the 5D III. It has little higher FPS and great focusing. If you are thinking of video then I think you should consider the xf100 or xf300, simply because the DSLR can not autofocus on moving subjects. I have an xf100 and it is excellent. The XF300 gives better low light and background blur however if you can afford it.
I have a few lens. My most used however is the 24mm 1.4, 14mm 2.8 and the 135mm 2.0
24-105 is good general purpose lens. You might want t a wider lens as well, maybe a 17-35mm
I agree with you, the 17-40 would be a better fit with that camera, you would use the wide a lot more than the zoom particularly if you have the 70-200 already. I own both these lens and they are both excellent but the 24-105 is not wide enough for general purpose on anything but full frame. $200 cheaper as well : D
I have been trying to get back to this video and comment since I did not do it when I watched it 10 years ago. Got the mark ii and still running strong! 🤙🏼
@8:45 the 5D Mark II has more noise but also has higher resolution. The 5D Mark III has less noise but looks all mushy
The 1D C is for professional cinematography and in particular the new 4K standard and as such is priced in the +$10,000 range. Where as the 1D X is professional consumer camera that can shot video but its real strength is sports and action photography. I don't own either of these cameras but I would love to have the 1D C. I have no need for a 1D X
got refurbished 5D II for $1407 direct from Canon, free shipping, It was as good as brand new ... better deal than on ebay. I used the Canon Loyalty Program, just sent a very old broken canon film point and shoot to get the 20% off.
That can be repaired, have local camera shop send to Canon. I had simlar problem with a 40D and they fixed it for $180.
I would get them to quote repair first.
Good luck.
I would consider the 6D which closer to the 5D II in price but gets you the 5D III video features and still full frame.
I agree, while it would be great to get a real cinematography camera XF305 or C100 for example the starting price is $6-7k where you can get the same or better video quality with the 5D or 6D for $2k. Not as easy to use but gets the results. : )
If it were me I would get the mkII and spend the rest on better glass. The camera really makes so little difference.
I think Jack is correct, still no WiFi you need the WFT-E7 or EYE-FI. Also no remote flash release build in which every Nikon and even the 7D has.
Just the kind of end user review I've been looking for. Thanks.
08:11 , sure, we see improvement in noise, but decay in sharpness. you can read the letters on the watch with the 5d2, while you can't with the 5d3. what we are seeing is a default noise reduction algorythm i think. i wouldn't call that an improvement.
I am glad you included the 70D, and I am settled on that now.
Thank you!
Either will work but the Mk III has a better sensor and more features. The 6D is also a good option
Good idea, there really is no 'must have' features on the mark III
Your best equivalent replacement would be 17-55mm 2.8. It's not L lens in terms of build quality but the optical/image quality definitely is up there. But if you plan to move to full frame slr soon, then you should save money for the up coming 24-70mm 2.8 L II (mark II), cost = $2299. The MTF chart suggests it is likely as sharp as the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II which is insanely sharp. The sharpness maybe as sharp or sharper than prime lenses.
Good comparison. Love Beaker in the background! Nice touch!!
The 5D3 is an improvement but at what cost? I know many professionals who use the 5D2 despite its older auto focus system and are very happy. Last week I attended a wedding, the photographer used a 5D2 the two video guys both used 5D2 each, all of them said the new 5D3 was too expensive - after all with the typical cost for wedding photos coming down these guys have to try to cover more weddings (which are also reducing) just to stand still.
Good video -thanks for posting
I think Magic lantern is a great tool. I can not wait for it to be available on other cameras.
Totally agree
Thanks Nick, nice video, I think I will get a used canon 5d mark ii. I have a canon 60 D, which i really like, but I want to get a full frame camera. Thanks again for the advice.
Take a look at my 5D vs 6D video. I think the 6D might be a better choice for the type of photos you take.
depends on how big the church is and how close you want to walk up to the bride and groom. if you think you can get up to 5-8 feet of where they are doing their vows, you might wanna check out 24-70mm, 2.8. and instead of a steadicam search for a generic shoulder rig. steadicam merlin can run up to $800, but a cheap shoulder rig with the same purpose can save you $500+ more, for maybe a second lens, like for portraits or something. (best of luck with your purchase/endeavors)
For video everyone... it's basically the same thing. 1080p FULL HD. When it comes to sharpness, it's all about the lens and f-number you are at (most lenses have a "sweet spot" and it's generally f/8. Get a prime lens. Less glass is a better thing for the image than a zoom lens. Zeiss lenses are pretty amazing because it's arguably some of the best glass used for primes. Sure the MarkIII is updated in speed at performance but the MarkII and the III handle video the same... It's the GLASS used.
I thought I'd share my input as well. I first started with a 7D, then eventually added the 5D II to my collection. The lack of AF points and just the sorry AF accuracy on the 5D II do hurt some shots on occasion, however the benefits of then FF sensor in comparison to the still beautiful APS-C sensor on the 7D is significant. The 5D III basically adds the benefits of the 7D, with the 5D II, but the cost increase is a bit too much for me to justify upgrading to it.
Just my two cents.
No problems on mine. I hear it is very hard to replicate
Thanks for the video, I'm stuck between the two right now and the low light is extremely important to me. That could end up ,being the deciding factor.
Having used the 60D, I find the Mark2 menu a bit ancient.
Working on it : ) Thanks!
Well done comparison. The price of the MkII just keeps dropping, now about half the price of the MkIII. It has been the workhorse for many pros around the world, so why would it not be good enough for amateurs?
Real estate photography/cinematography needs wide wide wide. I would start with the 17-35 if that is the case.
A 1100D with a even the 60mm macro would out perform a 5D II with cheap lens every time. The lens is much more important than the camera. Take a look at my Macro lens review. Thanks
Folks I got 5D Mark III recently and if you have money for Mark III - get one...
I'm not making any videos so far but I know that video performance is better and Canon did very good job with ISO...Mark III is performing much better with high ISO in low light too.
hey... it's your money... go for it. I am cool with my 5d mark II that I bought in december of last year while it was on promotion ($2700 for the kit & $1960 for the 70-200 F2.8 II..$425 for 580exII each). there are quite a few tests that say the 5d mark II bests the mark III in noise and resolution. I believe it is the same sensor just with a different processor and firmware to utilise the sensor in a different way. Kai (from Digitalrev) said something similar in a video review of the mark III.
I enjoyed your review and think bringing in the 7d for comparison works well. However, it seems to me you missed a good piece of advice. The mk ii is a fantastic camera and the upgrades as you say are not that significant. My advice would be to keep your mk ii for portrait work etc (or buy a second hand one if it's your first 5d), and buy a 7d for sports photography etc (i would not use the mk ii or mk iii due to the much lower shoot speed). This is good advice unless the buyer has cash to burn
Canon XF100 and for some shots I used a 5D II
Honestly I can not see much if any difference in image quality at this point. There are people on the web claiming there is but not that I can make out so far.
Great video, thanks for this nice comparison, also for showing the 7d
The Mark II's low light capabilities is still killer. I haven't been doing much reading on the 5D III, but if it's even the slightest bit better, it's still worth it. Of course, if you are having trouble shelling out the $3K for the body, then the camera isn't for you. But if this is not only your passion but also a profession, and you already have a collection of L glass, then it is no doubt worth it. Now I just need to see how much I can get for the 7D and 5D II I own.
I live in Norway and here the 5D mark II has a sales price of US $2171,40 today (mai 2012) while the 5D mark III has a prohibitively sale price of US $4676,20!!! So Im staying with my mark II until mark IV comes out, if Im not changing to hasselblad by then. :P
Thank you for the useful information, it was very helpful. I was wondering to get 5D but couldn't really know the differences between Mark II n' III.
I will probably be able to get a second hand MKII before I could get a MKIII.
I would like the faster frames per second and the higher ISO.
Thanks for this comparison video, very well done and helpful!
Mark II is sharper in the image than the Mark III, look at the text written around in the watch. Yet it remains more noisier.
Mark III's image also seems blurry to me, almost like its handheld with a low shutter speed or overly Noise Reduced.
Then again, this might just be one of those out of focus things. It can happen to everone :/
Great comparison review, couldn't help but laugh at you scratching the crap out of the Mk2 the entire review with the Mk3 strap hanger lol
This was so helpful. Well done and thank you!
Hey Nick!
You should do more tutorials and reviews. You are very good at it. Thanks for doing it!
Now I'm sure about 5D mark2. My first full frame. Thanks a lot Man.
Alle DSLR purtroppo manca l'audio professionale XLR non si possono usare a mano libera e l'autofocus rapido è un problema, un grosso problema.
not me... if thats the case why go for a high resolution camera in the first place?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there different versions of the 5D2, old version and a more update version.
by the way video quality has been improved on mark III: less moire and noise, also sharpens better in post. Tested by gurus like: Phillip Boom and other film makers.
Of course why just one? Why not three?
I have never heard of this problem?
I also think that one could do a whole lotta of good with the MKII & a good set of glass but then again, Ken Rockwell claims that the MKIII doesn't require all that expensive L glass because now it has CA correction. I do agree with the fact that it is a lot of money, whether it's on sale or not. The 7D is a great camera as well but can't handle the noise the MKIII can but then again, I hardly shoot in low light.
I had constant focus problems with the Mark 3
Great Review I have the 60D and am loving it over my HD Camcorder mainly going to SD cards vs tape media.
BEST REVIEW EVER!!! Thank you Nick :))
the picture quality on the mk3 is about 1 stop better in low light on high iso,
for anything else the differences(i-q mk2 vs mk3) are too little to notice (video&stills)
the mk3 still lacks the 1080p60 video mode and it still has no usable auto-focus in video-mode. In my opinion the only reason to pay the 1000$ premium on the mk3 is because of its 61point professional grade AF-system, which really is awesome (but really necessary only for action & sports) mk2-focus feels sluggish in comparison.
using nikon & canon gear means you need to buy all the lenses & accessories twice.. it could be worth it if you're a professional & really need the best quality. Consider that those 2k you are spending on a new canon 5d2 body could pay for a couple of pro-lenses for your existing nikon gear./ For video also look at the sony alpha bodies, which feature a really nice autofocus in video mode, however the sony's aren't as good in low light as canon or nikon
I think the 5D-3 is a better buy from someone that is coming from an older model than a 5D-2 and wants to upgrade. The jump from the 5D-1 to the 5D-2 was huge! This is just not the case with the 5D-3, especially in the IQ department. The 5D-3 does offer a much better focusing system though. One similar to that of the 7D. I would say the 5D-3 is like a 5D-2 with the 7D focusing and bells and whistles. Am i jumping to it from the 5D-2? Nope, I'm waiting this one out. Not worth it IMO...
Nice color changing table.
nice review, canon wants too much $ for the new mark III. Image quality in raw almost no difference to mark II, depends what kind of photography anyone is doing: so the new features might be a must. For real fast action 7d is still better with 8fps. I shoot with 4 canon dslrs, none is perfect and never will.
I just got a second hand Mark 2. It looks very primative compare to the layout and focusing of my 60D. However its ISO ability can get the job done.
Very little positive said for mark ii. I find little difference in image quality. I'm keeping my mark iii. But I'm also keeping my mark ii for backup instead of selling it.
When I was researching my 7D and then my 5D Mark III, you'll always find someone somewhere that has a problem with a camera, doesn't matter what it is, especially on forums. Someone has a problem of some kid with every camera somewhere in the world! I say go for it, take a chance, the odds are very much in your favour that you'll get a camera that works just fine!
Well you have the same watch as mine so you're clearly awesome. Upgrading to 5DIII from the 7D. Thanks for the review. Can you clarify that the Wi-Fi is internal as standard & not just ÉYE-Fi' enabled like I was told. (Jack @ Jessops in Leeds UK said this if anyone wants to go correct him)
Switching to A7r from 7D, I do miss the layout and ease of use of Canon bodies though. Don't like the 5D2, the thumb grip is just weird, too broad and not grippy at all.
just me or does the mk II win the dynamic range?
I have a similar shot of the Golden Gate Bridge that you have up on your wall, couldnt help but notice!. Is that a canvas print? looks awesome!
Moire on the 5d mark 3 is now gone! But the Rolling shutter is still very there!
5d mark 3 is much better in the video mode now then the 5d mark 2
I would ask, do you even miss shots with your 500D because of the AF system? If no, then I would get the MKII. All the savings can go towards EF lenses.
Thanks Nick...I am contemplating moving to full frame...I do a lot of outdoor action shots with dogs and kids...Is the focus system that much better for me to make the leap to the Mark lll?
At the moment I got the 500D and I have plans to buy a full frame camera, I might get a mkII "cheap" but I'm thinking of if I should get a new mkIII instead cos the autofocus system? Will it be worth the extra money? It will get quite expensive for since only 1 of my lenses will work (50mm).
Very good and honest review! Thanks :)
I was told the MK 3 is better for video. I'm not sure but I think it might have time code?
I have NEVER used time code and don't know anyone who has. Do you think the MK 3 would be worth it if your using it mainly for video?
Awsome vid man, very helpful
Hi!
Does anyone know if Canon has fixed the "soft focus issues" for photos?? I'm very interested in buying a 5D II, but some feedback that I read from Canon user's makes me think twice about it! I particulary have read about "the Focus screen that fall off" & "Soft focus photos"..... ANY answer will help. Thanks! :-)
Get the mark iii! I've got both now and the mark iii is a great improvement.
You can have 2 MK2 for the price of one MK3... this is important to consider.
Those ISO images cant be right. I'll bet the noise reduction is turned sky high on the 5D3 and its turned off on the 5D2. In the 5D3 image there is also a big loss in detail wich suggest that I'm right about this.
That was really helpful. Thanks so much.
Nick Murray. Which one looks better quality for videos ? Mark ii or Mark iii
Thanks for sharing. While the ISO performance and AF are obvious enhancements to the mark iii, how do you find the image quality compare to the mark ii (e.g. can you distinguish a better image quality in the mark iii)? Cheers