Sell 40D and buy 5D MKII?

[walter_strong5]

<p> Right off the top, I'm not a professional photographer. My shoots are for recreation and family events. I've shot some weddings in the past and may do so again but that's not a primary consideration for me. The 5D MK II is well within my budget. My camera bag holds a 16-35L IS f.2.8 and a 24-105L IS f/4 is on the way. There's a 14MM f/2.8 Sigma, 50 MM Canon macro and a 300MM L IS f/4.5 in the bag as well. Will spending $2700 for a 5D MK II make sense or should I concentrate on some other aspect of my equipment? The video capability of the MK II is somewhat appealing but realistically I'm not going to be doing a lot of video. <br>

Here's my living situation. I'm a 66 year old batchelor who is going into a "semi-retirement" lifestyle (working just two days a week) and my income will be more than ample for my needs. Yosemite NP is a short drive to the east and San Francisco is a bit further to the west. All feedback welcome.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you are serious about landscape photography in places like Yosemite (and perhaps urban landscape photography in places like San Francisco) and you work very carefully and print large... the full frame body can provide some real advantages.</p>

<p>If your photographs are not generally printed in larger sizes and/or you tend to take a slightly more casual approach to photography the cost of the 5DII may not correlate with visible improvements in your photography.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Walter, I wouldn't hesitate to get a 5D Mark II. It's image quality is quite simply staggering, and now that you're "semi-retired," you'll have the luxury of being able to really enjoy using it.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I didn't think that there was an IS version of the 16-35/2.8 L.</p>

[bill_mussett1]

<p>Walter, I just took delivery of my 5DII after selling a 30D. I haven't had an opportunity to use it in many varying lighting conditions or subjects yet, but from the photos I have taken the color and sharpness are stunning. I use it with a 24-70 mm/L and even though the 30D could produce very good results with that lens, so far the 5DII is even better (as well it should be having about 2.5x the number of pixels).</p>

<p>The bottom line is I have no regrets upgrading even though it was a stretch financially. Given your stated situation I don't think upgrading would be a decision you would regret. And considering the versatility of the camera it may even lead you into new subjects or lighting conditions.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I'd look at it another way. The 40D is the devil you know. What won't it do for you? I'd consider adding a 10-22mm lens while there is a rebate and using it until it doesn't do something you need. The 5D II is a lot of camera but I'm having second thoughts. I've read some pros who backed theirs out and went to the 1DS III or back to the 5D I instead because they didn't like the auto-focus on the II and some liked the image quality of the I version better. To me the jury's still out. JMNHO of course. </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"... didn't like the auto-focus on the II and some liked the image quality of the I version better." </em> While it may be possible that someone made these comments (frankly I don't know if it is possible for to go back to "I" after using "II"), they are absolutely, positively NOT TRUE. Like the 'I' version, the IQ and autofocus on the 'II' is excellent.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>With the lenses that you have and the neighbourhood you live in, I'd go to full frame in a heartbeat and the 5DII is the best new camera in your budget. The only other camera, for a similar budget, to consider would be a used Canon 1DsII. Research both, handle both, and make your decision.</p>

<p>If the image quality of the 5DII gets a bad rap it might be that the high ISO performance may be lacking due to improper control over all those pixels. If this is the case you simply need to ask yourself how often you would shoot at over ISO 800.</p>

<p>You should look forward to the challenge of using your 14mm lens on full frame, if you never had a chance to use it on film. This in itself will bring you all new opportunities on a full frame body. </p>

<p>For my interests, (yours may be quite different) and based on the other lenses that you have I would have selected the 70-200/4 L IS over the 24-105/4 L IS. You will notice a significant difference in focal length range of all your lenses. The 24-105 is generally for people who want one lens on their full frame camera most of the time. You may not find it is up to the optical quality of all of your other lenses.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I shoot mostly for fun and I just got the 5D2. I kept my 40D for a few reasons. 1. speed ( 6.5 fps ) 2. an extra body. I love finally having full frame and the camera is amazing. I say if you have the money go for it, it will make your lenses perform better and the video is a nice bonus as is the better ISO performance. </p>

[mpolfer]

<p>Love my mark II but....... Just be aware that photoshop must be upgraded to cs4 and lightroom must be upgraded to lightroom 2. I was so excited to get my camera that I overlooked these facts and had to resort to "jpeg only" shooting until I could upgrade and unlock the power of raw. Having made these adjustments I can't say enough about the performance of my mark II. Good luck<br>

Mike</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I upgraded from a 10D to a 5D. Full frame is great since your can get <a href="../photo/8243626&size=lg">really wide shots</a> .</p>

<p>You deserve a new camera Walter.</p>

<p>I <em>never </em> heard anybody say on their deathbead "I wish I had more money in the bank.</p>

[bruce g. collier]

<p>Walter, with all that extra time, ample cash, and proximity to some great natural wonders, why not go large format? :) Seriously, the 5D Mark II is an extremly fine tool, and I wouldn't part with mine. I recently took it to Italy (and a 4x5) for the express purpose of using it in interior and other low-light situations where a tripod would not be allowed. It excels in this arena. And yes, if you do use it as such, you will routinely park it in the 800-6400 ISO range. I could hand hold it at nightfall even.</p>

<p>I could have cared less about the HD video feature when I bought it, but after having used it, wow. </p>

<p>Michael - I have not upgraded PS to CS4, but I do my conversion in DPP before piping it over to CS3. Yes, it's a slow process, but works.</p>

<p>Here are some Canon 5D Mark II samples:</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.brucegcollier.com/galleries/italy/level2_z_5dmii.htm"><strong>Canon 5D Mark II Images</strong></a></strong></p>

<p>Regards, Bruce</p>

[steve_may1]

<p>The 5D Mark 2 is a stunning camera - very light and easy to carry all day. You don't need CS4 to shoot RAW. I convert my RAW files to dng. (which is the same as RAW as far as I am aware - no difference in quality), I then open them in CS3.</p>