Get 5D II or wait for 5D III?

[serge_kakorin]

<p>Andrew Case, show us some of your work. After seeing it, we'll be able to give you a better advice.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . my advice won't change if I view AC's work, or not.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[nathangardner]

The mk iii will likely do all the thinking for you and even travel to exotic places and take stunning images while you

sleep. I wouldn't even waste my time on inferior equipment even if it would allow me to shoot RIGHT NOW, because

when the mk iii arrives, all the previous photos will be worthless.

[JDMvW]

<p>Even if there is a Mark III announced, I'd bet availability will be difficult and slow given the quake and other disruptions of the production end of the operations over much of the western Pacific area.<br>

Then on the other hand, I'm terrible at guessing what Canon will or won't do. I still don't understand why they called it the 7D. (rhetorical question, please do not answer)</p>

[zac williams www.williams]

<p>I really like the idea of buying a 60D. New camera with great features that is cheap! The autofocus smokes the 5DII. I use mine almost exclusively for video on the paying jobs the tilt screen is so great. Great size for a fun travel cam on the still images.</p>

<p>When the 5D III hits, sell the 60D and lose $100 or keep it as a second body. The 5DII is a great camera that image wise will be hard to top. AF, etc. could be better. I shoot almost exclusively for publication and when I look through all the books I've shot my original 5D images were great as were the files from my original 1Ds (low ISO of course.) In the end any of the full frame Canons have been capable of the best output available and still are at different resolutions of course.</p>

<p>If you really want to play with full frame, find a good used 5D, if AF and burst rate isn't important. You are definitely on the right track putting lenses first. If I see an L lens on a Rebel, I always think "there is someone that is serious and knows what they're doing." I can't say the same for people with 28-200 off-brands mounted on a 1D whatever.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>History tells us that the Mk IV will be better then the III. If you can hold off that long, that's the one to get.</p>

<p>But if you're like me, and you want to take photos now, then get the best camera that you can justify, right now.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dan your AF on the 5DII may work perfectly, mine could be better. For most purposes it works fine but I find the AF has two weaknesses.<br>

With subjects that suddenly come into view the AF is slow to acquire focus. An example of this is if you lie on the ground below a jump and shoot a skier going over you. In situations where my 1DIIN (or my 7D) would acquire the subject the 5DII will probably not do so until too late. In this situation I will shoot center plus assist on AI Servo.<br>

When shooting fast moving sports - e.g. Ice Hockey the 5DII AF is definitely not as good as the 1DIIN or 7D. With the latter two cameras I will get 95%+ of shots in focus, whereas with the 5DII this number will be 90%</p>

<p>As I said in my earlier post the 5DII AF is very good - comparable to my 1NRS but is not as good as the 7D or 1D models. It is this slower AF and the slower fps rate that prevents it from being almost perfect. With 5fps or better and a 1 series AF (plus multi spot metering and a viewfinder blind) it would be the perfect all rounder. Of course they make that camera, but it is 3x the price and called the 1DsIII - they even replace the silly mode dial with buttons!</p>

[abbas_haider]

The 5D iii has all the features that any photographer wants but if you can cope with your cam wait for mkiii else mkii

will not disappoint you

 

Regarding the 1Ds iii as our friends say it is duel digic 4 which has allot of buffer where top class modle photographer

needs it

[zml]

<p><em>> With 5fps or better and a 1 series AF (plus multi spot metering and a viewfinder blind) it would be the perfect all rounder. Of course they make that camera, but it is 3x the price and called the 1DsIII - they even replace the silly mode dial with buttons!</em></p>

 

<p><em>H</em>ow much would you pay for such camera?  At $4000 a 5D3 as described by you would be a non-starter... I, too, would like to drive a Mercedes for the price of a Honda but, ehem, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.  IMO, there might be incremental upgrades and improvements, but don't expect any revolutionary changes to the design philosophy of the 5D series.</p>

[don_v.]

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>Definitely wait. There is no reason for you to buy now; you don't "need" a new camera. After the 5D3 (or whatever) is announced you can decide whether it's worth waiting for, but either way the cost of 5D2's will not go *up* after the 5D3 is announced. Sit tight a little bit longer; you won't regret it.</p>

<p>To spend almost $2000 (used price) for a 3-year-old DSLR that sells new for $2400 seems pretty foolish, which is why you'll find very few people here (including those urging <em>you </em>to buy) who have done it.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>* Do you own Canon's fast wide primes (i.e. 24 f/1.4) or T/S lenses? Get the 5D mkII now.</p>

<p>* Do you regularly need to make large (> 20") prints from high ISO shots? Get the 5D mkII now.</p>

<p>If neither is true then the 5D mkII is a lot of money for no real benefit over the other options. A 7D is $900 cheaper with the same IQ at low-mid ISO and 1D like shooting performance. A 60D is $1,500 cheaper with the same IQ at low-mid ISO. Unless you specifically need the sensor size or high ISO of the 5D mkII, you are almost certainly better off waiting until Canon releases a FF sensor that reestablishes some real advantage over their best APS-C sensor at commonly used ISOs.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>There're rumors that the 5D3 won't be a continuation of 5D2. Instead the 5D market will be split into a budget line FF with lower pixel count and the 5D3. There'll probably be a new FF in the $2K range that might be even worse than the 5D2 and the 5D3 will occupy a higher price point ($4K).</p>

<p>To me, why wait? If you cannot shoot with the 5D2, you cannot shoot, 5D3 will be of no help to you.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Philip, I see your point. The 5D2 AF definitely has limitations. But when I compare it to my D700 (which is supposed to have REALLY GOOD AF), I don't see much difference. And for stationary subjects the 5D2 is more reliable in my experience than the more sophisticated Nikon. (The Nikon is better with moving subjects.)</p>

<p>The bottom line is that I wonder whether any AF technology can please all photographers all the time. There are things that AF does fabulously. There are things that it can do well when handled with skill. And there are things that AF doesn't do well at all. Maybe new advances will change that someday. But for now, I can't support the idea that the 5D2's AF is substandard or archaic when it outperforms the state-of-the-art D700 AF under some circumstances.</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>I would opt for the Mamiya RZ Pro!</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Wait for the Canon 3D FF camera...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>3D as in "not a 5D, but closer to a 1D"?<br>

or<br>

3-D as in "show three-dimensions." :?</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Canon is going to replace the 1Ds mark III before anything. I talked to a canon sales rep last week and he said there are going to be changes coming in the next couple months. So in my opinion, I would wait to buy anything.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Isn't the 1Ds a $7000 camera? I don't think it relates to a discussion of the much less expensive 5D2 or 5D3.</p>