Is the 5D Mark II still the best camera out there for the money?

<p>I should have asked,</p>

<p><strong>Is the 5D Mark II still the best FULL-FRAME camera out there for the money?</strong></p>

<p>I was noticing that B&H still has the 5D II for a remarkably good price ($1749). I also know from my years of using it that it was a fine camera--even at the original price. At the present price, it has to be an even better value.</p>

<p>Given the above, is the 5D II still the BEST buy out there? (I think it once was.) Or, have the newer Canon full-frame DSLRs outpaced the 5D II in terms of value for the price?</p>

<p>The reason that I ask is that I have heard that the production of the 5D II has ceased, implying that the ones that are selling at such a great price are suddenly going to be gone--and soon. The 5D II impressed me by its combination of very good resolution and very good low light capabilities--quite an achievement in one camera. I am sure that the 5D III can do even better, but that is out of my price range right now. What about the newer EOS DSLRs? How are they in terms of both resolution and low light capabilities--for the price?</p>

<p>I would appreciate your opinions, especially if you have used the cameras in question.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure that the 5D III can do even better,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it will. I own one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about the newer EOS DSLRs? How are they in terms of both resolution and low light capabilities--for the price?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best Canon EOS full frame bang for your buck is the 6D. The prices were at it's lowest during the Boxing Week sales of 2012. I took advantage of the discount and bought one.</p>

<p>Let me add that the 6D will out focus the 5D3 in low light. The IQ is better to my eyes with the new sensor of the 6D when compared to the 5D3.</p>

<p>Probably, and probably a better value than the 6d currently, especially since you can find 5D2s used (you'd be hard pressed to find a 6D used right now ;) ), In my experience w/ the 5D2 I found that at it's new retail it was an excellent value, and if bought used, the value was up to twice as good!</p>

<p>I am surprised to hear (from Peter J) that the 6D will out focus a 5D<strong><em>3</em></strong>. But I must assume he has both and came to that conclusion through comparing the two's performance side by side. Very surprising!</p>

<p>Marcus, the key there is in LOW LIGHT. Canon has gone to great efforts to make the center focus sensor of the 6D effective at very low light levels.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am surprised to hear (from Peter J) that the 6D will out focus a 5D<strong><em>3</em></strong>. But I must assume he has both and came to that conclusion through comparing the two's performance side by side. Very surprising! [Marcus Ian]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 6D and the 5D3 using the same Canon EF 85/1.2L II USM lens was tested in a moonlit bedroom using the centre focus points of both cameras. The 6D with it's LV of -3 hunted and locked focus on several chosen points. The 5D3 with an LV of -2 hunted and failed to lock focus.</p>

<p>Thanks Don Baccus for your help.</p>

<p>Well, not having shot with either camera extensively, I personally wouldn't know (obviously), and, of course, it has nothing to do with the OP's original post, nor is it even really relevant, but the comment certainly <em>is</em> surprising, <em>especially</em> given the hoopla over the 5D3's supposedly vastly superior AF system. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I bought one just when the mark III came out because I don't need the particular features added. My impression is that the 6D is not really an UPgrade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it has nothing to do with the OP's original post, nor is it even really relevant [Marcus Ian]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two strikes on your reading skills. The other questions from the OP and I will repeat just for you:</p>

<p>"What about the newer EOS DSLRs? How are they in terms of both resolution and low light capabilities--for the price?"</p>

<p>My experience of using a 5D2 for 7 months is fairly positive. IQ and resolution is good; especially in low light.You do need to be careful not to underexpose too much; as shadow noise esp at high ISOs can be a problem if you are not accurate with your exposure.<br>

AF is fine for normal shooting; unfortunately focus is in low light is not; so I use manual focus far more than any other camera I have owned.<br>

If you are not shooting sport or wildlife (as I dont with this cam) its a lot of camera for the money. I cant comment on the 6D as Ive not seen one yet.</p>

If your question isn't specifically limited to purchases of new equipment, I would think the 5D might best full-frame camera out there for

the money. I have seen 2 sell for under $600 in the past few weeks on the local craigslist. Heck of a camera for that price.

<p>Double post.</p>

<p>For me, the 5DIII and 6D offer only marginal improvements over the 5DII, and certainly nothing that justifies "upgrading." In fact, the newer bodies are decidedly <em>inferior</em> in at least one sense: they don't have interchangeable focusing screens. I use the Eg-S screen in my 5DII because I like to use manual focus lenses. Standard screens in DSLR's are inaccurate for manual focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...they don't have interchangeable focusing screens. [Mark Pierlot]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong. The 6D has interchangeable focusing screens.</p>

<p>http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/products?m=gp&pid=18741#_030</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 6D has interchangeable focusing screens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Peter. I stand corrected. It remains mysterious to me why the 5DIII doesn't have interchangeable screens...</p>

<p>No worries Mark Pierlot. This is Camera Labs review (or view) on the lack of interchangeable focusing screens on the 5D III:</p>

<p>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/<br /><br /><em>Canon EOS 5D Mark III viewfinder</em><br /><br /><em>The 5D Mark III also becomes Canon's third DSLR, after the 7D and 1D X, to feature on-demand LCD graphics in the viewfinder. These replace the interchangeable focusing screens of earlier models and I much prefer this approach as the options are much richer and more dynamic, not to mention eliminating the need for an optional and fiddly accessory; you can also simply turn them off for a completely clean view. To be fair, Nikon has implemented on-demand LCD viewfinder graphics for many years now, but it's still nice to see Canon gradually deploying them across more models.<br /></em></p>

<p>The comments below are personal opinions based on years of shooting with the 5D Mark II.</p>

<p>The 5D Mark II is still a highly capable camera. This was the first digital camera that lived up to my expectations of image quality, and I'm still impressed with the files that I have captured with it. I would consider the 5D2 to be a bargain at the current prices.</p>

<p>I have made 45-inch prints (long side) from a single 5D2 file (using careful post processing techniques, no stitching). I could not be more delighted with the quality and detail in those prints. For critical purposes, I would not enlarge much beyond that size, but that's still a fairly large print. </p>

<p>The 5D2 revolutionized video capture, but given that I'm not a 'video guy' I can't speak to the camera's pros and cons in that area. Just note that it can be effective with the proper accessories. The newer 6D reportedly has some difficulties with video. Keep this in mind if video capture is important to you.</p>

<p>The one issue that I have always had with the 5D2 is noise in shadow areas. The noise can be especially noticeable in high-contrast portraits. Other than that, I have no reservations about the camera's image quality. But if portraiture is your main business, be aware of this limitation. I find that the internal High ISO noise reduction works very well, so portrait shooters might want to enable that option and shoot RAW+JPEG in order to take advantage of the NR in JPEG files when extensive post processing is not required.</p>

<p>I now own a 5D3 and a D800. bit I am still keeping my 5D2 as a backup to the 5D3. There are shooting situations where I prefer the Canon combination to the D800.</p>

<p>The control layouts of the 5D2 and 3 are similar enough that you can use the two bodies together fairly easily. The zoom option is an unfortunate exception, however. The 6D has a very different layout. Pairing a 6D with a 5DIII could be problematic in my opinion. </p>

<p>The 5D2's center focus point is fast and accurate. but the rest of the focus points don't work very well.</p>

<p>The 5D2's live view implementation is superior to that of the D800, especially for manual focusing. The D800 does not display enough detail in the Live View image to make critical manual focusing decisions. That said, the D800's AUTO focus in Live View works very well. </p>

<p>The 5D2 is not a particularly good choice for shooting in bad weather, but I have never had one 'freeze' on me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 6D has a very different layout. Pairing a 6D with a 5DIII could be problematic in my opinion. [Dan South]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I owned a Canon EOS 5D and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II combination for years and didn't have a problem. With the newer Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EOS 6D, I have not had any issues with the pairing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the 5DIII and 6D offer only marginal improvements over the 5DII, and certainly nothing that justifies "upgrading."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everyone's needs are different. The focus options of the 5DIII alone (which are effectively the same as the 1DX) put the III in a different class than the 5DII. The III is a far better camera for capturing moving subjects.</p>

<p>The 5DIII has a much more rugged body with much better weather sealing. The 5D2 always feels like an egg shell in my hand. The III feels like a professional body.</p>

<p>High ISO performance is better. I'm comfortable shooting at up to 3200 on the II and 8000 on the III with the expectations of making large prints. (Even higher if print size is not important.) Is this a big enough improvement for any particular photographer to consider upgrading? That depends on their needs. I shoot at High ISO frequently, so the improvement was worth it to me.<br>

<br />The LCD screen of the 5DIII is without peer. If you manually focus TS lenses or macros, this could be a selling point. This is also the area where Nikon lags Canon significantly.</p>

<p>Resolution and DR have improved, although not substantially over the 5D2. I would not upgrade from the II to the III for resolution alone.</p>

<p>If you need video capabilities, the 5DIII is clearly superior in this regard.</p>

<p>Peter J, noted, but personally I would be lost without the column of buttons to the left of the LCD. All of my cameras have had that layout for years.</p>

<p>Value. What a funny, ethereal and ephemeral concept! Any camera's "value" is solely defined by it's ability to get the shot you want. If a camera costs $8 and it gets you all the photos you want, it's value is much higher than the $1800 camera that you can't get to deliver what you want. If there are two cameras which both deliver for you, the lower cost one may seem to be the best value in the short term, but what about durability? So it's not as easy as price.</p>

<p>Ultimately, only the individual can determine value. Ask yourself what you want to shoot. If the camera seems capable of doing that, then it may have good value. If your current camera delivers then there's probably no reason to buy a new one.</p>

<p>Then there's "labor value", "use value", and many more - see <em>Das Kapital</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any camera's "value" is solely defined by it's ability to get the shot you want.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Granted, Patrick. What I am wrestling with is whether to grab a new one at the current price before new ones are no longer available. I shot the 5D II extensively for three years, and so I know what it can do by way of getting the shot. I also know what Dan is talking about with regard to shadow noise at high ISO. Even so, at moderately high ISO it came through for me as a camera for <em><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1032268">night photography</a></em>, not to mention for <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1026501"><em>shooting at twilight.</em></a></p>

<p>I currently have the Nikon D800E as my only full-frame DSLR, and it is a great camera in terms of resolution--but not great in terms of low-light shooting. I doubt that my Canon lens collection will ever be what it was before I had to liquidate almost everything last winter and spring due to a financial crisis (from which I have not completely recovered), but the 5D II with a very small handful of good lenses could still be useful to me, particularly in low-light situations. What the future holds for me during semi-retirement is very problematic, but the 5D II is a known and reliable quantity. The 6D and newer EOS full-frame DSLRs are not.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the very helpful discussion. The issue of low light focus on the 6D is very interesting indeed. Sometimes the side issues and peripheral discussions uncover new issues and new facts which we might never find out about on our own.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then there's "labor value", "use value", and many more - see <em>Das Kapital</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, you crack me up. I read all three thousand pages back in the early 70s, but I would read it again if it would make me a better photographer.<br>

<em> </em><br>

--Lannie<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I hear you, and understand completely the desire to get good value in a camera purchase. Four months ago my only modern DSLR was a Canon 7D and no full frame. Then the deals parade (and a few zero-interest credit deals) brought me 5 new beauties. I got the 5DII because it came with a free 13x19"capable Canon 9500 MkII printer via rebate. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think my OM-D is my best low light camera in terms of image quality.</p>