will I regret a 5D MK 2?

rdavis · February 22, 2012

I am very close to getting a 5d Mk2 body. But have one concern which is the huge file sizes. I know most say space

is cheap. but for everyday shooting is this over-kill? I am using a 40D now but want better ISO. I see Nikon 700 is

at 12MP. It looks like canon prices were down until a week ago and are now back around $2400. I really don't want to

switch but really like the idea of a better camera but without the fat. any thoughts? I shoot around 4-5,000 per year.

thanks...

bob_sunley · February 22, 2012

It's not fat, it's detail.

craigd · February 22, 2012

If you aren't sure a $2400 21 MP full-frame DSLR is for you, don't buy it. At least, not until you're sure.

The 5D Mark II is an amazing camera, but it is larger and heavier than your 40D and it does produce significantly larger files. The 5D Mark II's raw files (.CR2) are around 25 to 35 MB each. Now, of course nothing says you have to shoot raw (though personally I think it's a waste not to), nor that you have to keep the raw files around once you've produced a JPEG that you're happy with (though again, why not? burn them to a DVD-R for storage, at least). And JPEGs can be resized to whatever dimensions you like, and their compression level can be adjusted to wherever you find the right balance between file size and image quality. So the file size issue really isn't all that meaningful in the end, as I see it.

Marcus Ian · February 22, 2012

If you want concise, clean, imagery without all the fuss (and, yes, gi-normous files), I'd suggest trying a 5D. They can be had for ~$1k, and produce, even @ iso 1600 & 3200, some very very clean imagery. @12.3 MP, the file sizes are vastly more manageable than the 5D2's. even JPEGs are more manageable, not only because of the reduced size, but because on a pixel by pixel basis, the 5D is less noisy than the 5D2 (giving better jpeg results). Having owned and used both extensively, I can that from personal experience.

That said, both of these guys will be considerably 'slower' than your 40D. If you like to shoot on burst, the 3FPS of the 5D will feel positively glacial, and the 3.9FPS of the 5D2 is somewhat less than satisfying. If you like the capabilities of the crop cameras, a 7D/60D may be more up your alley. Both will produce marginally better overall imagery (though not on a pixel by pixel basis), and you'll get more mileage out of your NR (one of the benefits of nearly 2x the pixels!), allowing a perceptible improvement in noise handling.

mark_pierlot · February 22, 2012

Do you want comparable resolution and better high ISO capability, or much higher resolution and better high ISO capability? It's a question that only you can answer.

Another consideration is how much money you have "invested" in EF lenses.

philip_wilson · February 22, 2012

Glass will be the big factor - EF-S lenses will not work on the 5DII, lower quality lenses do not look good with the 5DII resolution and you will need an extra battery. Thus it is an expensive upgrade. Interestingly the 5DII price has not fallen like the cheaper models - I got mine for $3000 when they came out and I still like it. I suspect a 5DIII will arrive but it is likely to be higher resolution - when it arrives the 5DII price will fall. The only full frame sensor Canon has apart from the 21 MP one is the new 18MP in the 1DX. It is possible that they come out with a cheaper full frame body using this sensor.

If you really only need high ISO and do not have much glass then the Nikon D700 / D3 are very good choices. That said the new D800 suggests that Nikon is moving to higher resolutions (Nikon uses Sony sensors).

In terms of a 7D or 60D I have the 7D and quite like it - it is as good for sports as my old 1DIIN. That said I prefer the 5DII for most of my shooting. The 5DII is about 2 stops better in high ISO performance and the files are not as robust to slight exposure issues at high ISO on the 7D. In terms of file size the 5DII RAW files are typically 25 - 27 MB while the 7D ones are about 23 - 25 MB so you really do not save much in file size.

g dan mitchell · February 22, 2012

"... for everyday shooting is this over-kill?"

Quite possibly, depending upon what you mean by "every day shooting." If you mostly share electronic versions of your photographs in email and online, the advantages of full frame will, for the most part, be pretty insignificant in most cases.

Dan

phule · February 22, 2012

The 5D Mark II offers 3 different RAW file sizes.

• 5616 x 3744 (21.0 MP) • 3861 x 2574 (10.0 MP) • 2784 x 1856 (5.2 MP)

So, if you do buy the 5D Mark II, you can shoot the same 10MP photos you've been shooting with the 40D but with the extra features the 5D Mark II offers.

Whether or not you actually /need/ a 5D Mark II is a separate, but very important, issue.

nathangardner · February 22, 2012

1D III is better at high ISO than your 40D, not quite as good as the 5D II, but still amazing. You'll definitely see a difference. It's 10MP and can be had for around $1700. It also has better AF and more pro features. It's a 1 series so the fat hasn't exactly been trimmed, but it's a great camera for the money.

arie_vandervelden1 · February 22, 2012