Is it the right time to buy a Mark 5d II

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>It's been over a year and the price of the 5D2 still hasn't even started to drop yet. You are way past due for a new camera if you are still shooting with a 20D. However, there a lot of other options beside a 5D2 how about a 50D or a 7D both would suit your needs. Why do you want or (NEED) Full Frame?</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>If you need one then its the right time. The 1DS IV will come out before the 5D III, so unless you plan on dropping $8000 on the 1DS, I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on a 5D II, b/c the III will be well after the release of the 1DS.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon has already leap-frogged Canon with the D3X, the best DSLR out there right now if one is looking for high resolution, an overall excellent feature set, and tough build quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an extremely subjective opinion. In a double-blind test, I doubt that people would consistently rate D3X prints as sharper or more detailed than 5D2 prints. Even at pixel-peeping magnifications the differences will probably have more to do with focus and stability and lens quality than sensor metrics.</p>

<p>Further, for about a third the price of a D3X the 5D2 provides the ability to shoot CLEAN photos at ISO 3200 and DSLR video capability that's regularly used by professional production companies (for popular network TV shows like House, for instance). Plus, don't forget that Canon makes a very sharp midrange zoom with IS (there's no Nikon equivalent), a more versatile 24mm tilt/shift lens, and a 17mm tilt/shift lens that's unique to Canon. Add it all up and the D3X feature list begins to look a little anemic.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I'm a Nikon guy who also owns and uses a 5D2.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>That's an extremely subjective opinion. In a double-blind test, I doubt that people would consistently rate D3X prints as sharper or more detailed than 5D2 prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I have not seen prints, but I was basing my comparison between the D3X and the 1Ds III <em><strong>entirely</strong></em> on the review at dpreview.com.</p>

<p>For JPEGS:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page25.asp</p>

<p>For RAW:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page28.asp</p>

<p>Higher ISO:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page31.asp</p>

<p>Summary, conclusions:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page33.asp</p>

<p>Having noted all this, however, I saw no advantage in image quality of the Canon 1Ds III over the 5D II, and so <em><strong>the 5DII seemed by far the better buy compared to either the Canon 1Ds III or the Nikon D3X.</strong></em></p>

<p>My original remark still stands, however: Nikon seems to be ahead, although only slightly ahead, with its D3X. I have to agree with you, however: most persons are not going to see the difference. My larger point was that at the extremes of concern for resolution (D3X) and concern for shooting speed with high ISO in low light (D3 and D700), the Nikons at those extremes are marginally better, but the 5D II captures very nearly the best of both worlds (high resolution and good performance with high ISO in low light) in one camera and is thus by far the better value--for most persons, but not all. The lack of weather-sealing on the 5D II is a consideration for those working in extreme weather conditions, and it is not exactly a speed demon, although it is plenty fast for my purposes.</p>

<p>I have felt very good about the purchase of the 5D II, in any case. In terms of image quality, it is the best camera that I have ever had. I do miss the build quality, weather-sealing, and AF of the 1Ds Mark II which I had to get rid of in order to afford it.</p>

<p>I have never shot a Nikon DSLR, although I continue to use Nikon lenses on the Canon DSLRs and on the Kodak 14n which I now have. I am very happy with using the 5D II as my primary camera and the 50D as my back-up using (mostly) Canon EOS lenses.</p>

<p>I will be interested in seeing what Canon pulls out of the hat with the !Ds Mark IV. . . .</p>

<p>While we are on the subject of the 5D II, however, I just got through doing some shots with ISO 50, ISO 12800, and ISO 25600 on the 5D II. I was surprised to find many of the very high ISO shots more than usable, and so I am not sure what Nikon's real advantage at high ISO amounts to in practice.</p>

<p>In any case, in laying out the claims about the D3X, I am hardly suggesting that persons should change brands. I am quite happy with Canon, and the 5D II really is a phenomenal camera in low light, regardless of the claims made for Nikon. I would want to caution, however, that shots in near darkness at 25600 do bring out the noise more so than those made in bright light--but there is no surprise there. I suspect that the same is true for Nikon. Both brands are quite phenomenal.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I will still say that Sony could be the brand to watch, given its huge marketing advantage and established reputation across a wide range of established consumer products.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[haniabsi]

<p>The next camera to be upgraded by Canon is 1Ds Mark III Not the 5D Mark II with possibly a few lenses like the 35mm f/1.4, the 135 f/2.0 (both other 10 years old), and the 24-70 f/2.8 (maybe with IS).<br>

The 5D Mark II has the best picture quality in Canon's line. It is time for their flag ship model to get the same IQ.<br>

18 Month Product cycle are for the lower model like the 50D. Let us say that Canon with not wait 3 years before they change it, but At least 2 years or 2.5 years.<br>

The 5D Mark II is a great camera by any stranded. I shoot with fast lenses almost wide open; so I only use the central point in the middle. A weather sealing would be nice but I do not really need right now. And the resolution is more than I ever need really otherwise you need a super computer to process all those raw files.<br>

So the question is can you wait or you need it now for a specific Job?</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikons at those extremes are marginally better, but the 5D II captures very nearly the best of both worlds (high resolution and good performance with high ISO in low light) in one camera and is thus by far the better value--for most persons, but not all. The lack of weather-sealing on the 5D II is a consideration for those working in extreme weather conditions, and it is not exactly a speed demon, although it is plenty fast for my purposes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, I believe that we are in complete agreement on this point. The D3X might squeak out marginally better resolution under very heavily-controlled conditions, but it's nowhere near the difference between, say, a top full-frame sensor and a 39MP Phase One back. That's a difference that a layman could spot.</p>

<p>For my dollars the 5D2 is the best all-around camera in production today (maybe EVER) even given its design compromises. If I need a faster or more rugged camera or one with a slight edge on high ISO performance, I grab my D700. For pretty much everything else I whip out the trusty and multi-talented 5D2.</p>

[hadi_khademi]

<p>Here is my humble 2 Cents. With full frame 5D MK II Canon has dominated a niche market called DSLR video (supplemented with 7D in APS-C category). 5D MK III will be a succession of MKII with enhanced video features to maintain the edge over Nikon. From still photography point of view, the focus system is probably going to see a good upgrade. I wouldn't expect the pixels to go up significantly though.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just an observation. Sony has a very visible presence in the USA, but it is relative small fry in terms of the big Japanese combines (look up zaibatsu and keiretsu). Interestingly both Sony and Honda have stayed outside the big combines. Many other companies that we know in the USA are linked into larger combines like Mitsubishi (Nikon) and Fuyo (Canon).</p>

[Brad_]

Unless you are really at the top of your game, minutia between cameras will make little or no difference.

 

Subject matter, your eye, your ability to translate and capture what's in front of you, and your post-

processing skills will drive the impact of your photographs far more over slight differences in cameras.

 

Don't worry about what's going to be available next year - it will most likely have zero impact on improving

your photography in a meaningful way.

[dcstep]

<p>Like others have said, I suspect that the upgrades to the 5D MkII will be in the video area and matching the 7D in AF and burst rate. I doubt there'll be a great leap forward in IQ. So, if you're going to use it for travel, portraits, scenics, there's little point in waiting; however, if you hope to shoot some sports and wildlife, then it might be worth waiting. I suspect they'll come out with the MkIII in 2010 because the pieces are largely there, already in use on the 7D.</p>