5d vs 5dmk2

<p>I was going to rent the 5dmkII for my two weddings this weekend but they were out of stock. I was just wondering if I would really see a drastic difference in the quality of the images. Does anyone have pictures they can compare to see the differences of the two cameras for wedding photography? Which one do you think will make the most difference in images for wedding photos-the 5d vs 5dmkII or the 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2 L</p>

<p>Basically, I'm considersing purchasing either the 5dMKII or the 50 L :) Thank you for your help!</p>

<p>I would advocate the MK2 if you already have the 50/1.4.</p>

<p>You will gain a stop of noise behaviour and a better low light AF accuracy system. I liked the 5D2 more than my 5D's and found it more snappy to shoot with. I had the 50L too but it focuses slower than the 50/1.4 and that made me eventually give it up (though the images are lovely from it when it hit focus correctly).</p>

<p>hmm interesting because I think my 50mm 1.4 focuses very slowly lol. That's the main reason I wanted to upgrade...</p>

<p>I use both the 5D and 5Dmk2 and don't think there is any difference, let alone a drastic one, in the quality of the images between them for all practical purposes that apply to wedding photography - ie. prints up to A3 size viewed at a "normal" distance, and photos in an album. I don't think anyone will notice any difference between them. I wouldn't use them both at a wedding if I thought the difference was obvious as the inconsistency would be too much visual contrast.</p>

<p>Where the mk2 wins is in high ISO performance where there is a drastic difference in the quality of the images. Unless you are going to use that a lot I wouldn't spend the money though.</p>

<p>So if this makes sense: in terms of photographs and end results it's a tool to do a job and you won't see any / much difference in a normal, well lit wedding photograph unless you pixel-peep at 100% on a monitor, and I'm yet to come across a bride or groom who is worried about that :-) The mk2 is a better low light tool though - whether you need that tool only you can decide.</p>

<p>I made the decision I need that tool because I do a lot of winter, very low light weddings (4pm ceremony on 23rd December at a flash-forbidden venue for example) and the razor thin DOF at f1.2 isn't always what you want.</p>

<p>I don't use either of the 50mm's but will say I find L glass better than non-L, and L lenses will likely last a lot longer so are a better investment. </p>

<p>There is a drastic pixel-peeping difference between the two in any shooting condition.<br /> There is at least an extra stop of ISO to work with within your given noise tolerance with the 5D2.<br /> The weather sealing is much improved on the 5D2.<br /> Although I probably wouldn't do it myself, the video feature might be valuable for weddings.</p>

<p>I don't think the difference betweeen the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2 is as drastic as the difference between the 5D and 5D2.</p>

<p>The only experience I have with this would be by Jasmine Star. Generally the pictures in her post retain the meta-data, and I review it often. Jasmine shoots with the 5DMII and her husband (JD) the 5D (perhaps not exclusively, but tends to be that way). I realize from a web-optimized file it's difficult to determine a camera's value, however there seems to be very minimal differences - I do notice a slight increase in noise with the 5D.</p>

<p>I would rent both, and decide from there! Or better yet, ask Jasmine! Since she has all 3 items (5D, 5DII, 50mm 1.2 L), she should have great insight on this debate :).</p>

<p>I own the 5dmk2 and a 50 1.4. If you are considering buying the 5mk2 or 501.2, I'd pick the 5dmk2. <br>

The ISO (imo) is good up to 3200, which is ideal for low lit churches using a variety of lenses. Good luck!</p>

<p>Ryan- which photos have the exif? I just tried looking it up and it was erased bc she saved for web devices. Is there another site you go to to see that info?</p>

<p>Here are some shots that I took on Sunday. These are a little rough, so don't beat me up too much. Extra points if you can tell which are the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.2, and the 85 f/1.2 without looking at the camera info.</p>

<p><a href="http://endearingreflections.smugmug.com/gallery/9069451_pBQwi" target="_blank">http://endearingreflections.smugmug.com/gallery/9069451_pBQwi</a></p>

<p>don't forget..the 5dm2 will suck your CF space at twice the rate</p>

<p>Mark T, I used the sRAW for most of what I shot. Its a 10mp fle and just right for most of the day.</p>

<p>The 5DMKII is a huge upgrade on the 5D. In terms of weather sealing, the MKII version is better, as more seals have been added and the construction of the body has been designed so that the each joint overlaps the other. In terms of weather sealing it is comparable to the old Eos 1N. <br>

It has more megapixels which result in higher quality images with more detail. If you are a wide angle shooter this extra resolution makes a huge difference. In terms of high iso capability, this camera is the best that Canon has, and it is stunning. Tonal range and flesh tone integrity have been kept right up to 6400 iso.<br>

The video is amazing if you are into that kind of thing, and as a consequence of the video option, the LCD screen is a huge upgrade on the 5D. It is viewable from different angles, and used with live view, you can have a really easy to use, silent camera.<br>

I was a die hard 1 series Canon user. I still have 3 1dsMK3 camera bodies, but they have been resigned to back up since the 5DMKII came along - yes it is that good!!<br>

The 50L is worlds apart from the 50 1.4. I have two 50 L's and three broken 50 1.4's. The build quality alone is the main reason why I would go with the 50L. The 50L bokeh is fantastic, it doesn't flare, and manually focusing is a breeze. It is my main lens for weddings, and is one of Canon's best.<br>

If I had to say which option would make the biggest difference to your pictures - 5DMKII for the high iso alone. It does make a major difference to the type of images you can get in low light.<br>

Jeff</p>

 

<p>I use both the 5D and 5DMMII. I notice a huge difference with the ISO and noise. The ISO with my 5DMMII at 3200 gives me the same noise results as the 5D at 1600, if you are looking at noise levels. I have used both with the same lens, side by side during a wedding for my own test. I was able to bump the ISO up to 3200 to give me the perfect exposure and shutter speed I needed for the low light I was shooting in, where as the 5D, at 1600, would have given me too slow of a shutter speed to have good results. I was also able to not have to use my flash as often as I did with my 5D. I am looking to replace my 5D's with the new 5DMMII one at a time. For me the bottom line, in low light, I'd rather shoot a higher ISO with a longer shutter speed for sharpness, than to shoot wide open at apts of 1.2 or 1.4 with the 50mm's.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Hey Missy,</p>

<p>The exif for Jasmine's photos in her blog is somewhat sporadic - sometimes it's included, sometimes not, and sometimes only certain info is provided. I use Opera explorer to read it, simply clicking on properties. A few recent images that may interest you are:</p>

<p>http://www.jasminestarblog.com/images/content/ACF49F.jpg - 5DII with 50 1.2</p>

<p>http://www.jasminestarblog.com/images/content/ACF9D.jpg - 5D @ 800 ISO</p>

<p>http://www.jasminestarblog.com/images/content/BlogShannonMatt0026.jpg - 5D @ 1250 ISO</p>

<p>I wasn't able to find any pictures with the 5D and 50 1.2 in my quick search, but if you dig deeper, who knows. It seems as though her recent posts don't retain the exif as frequently, perhaps deliberately, I'm not sure.</p>

<p> I find it very helpful when the exif is retained - gives you an inside look on how a photo was created. And with someone as popular and amazing as Jasmine, this can only be beneficial! Good luck with your decision :)</p>

<p>> Jasmine's photos in her blog</p>

<p>This is off-topic and late to this the thread, sorry. I was unaware of Ms. Star until today and wound up taking a look at her blog. It seemed to me that there's a large proportion of slightly off or worse compositions in her pictures. I was a little surprised to find this, considering how successful she apparently is. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of beautiful pictures on her site. The Fstoppers blog has just posted a long video interview with her where she says that she first picked up a digital SLR in 2007. I'm afraid that some of her pictures kinda look like it, too (I don't know how many of them were shot by a second shooter).<br>

http://fstoppers.com/chase-jarvis-sits-down-with-jasmine-star/</p>