5Dii or 5Diii

[christopher_diao1]

<p>I currently have 20D and 7D. About 15 EF lenses, a few L.<br>

I enjoy the 7D. But, want to do more of what I used to do with film -- macro and landscape with higher quality image, . Naturally, I need a FF.<br>

Now, 5Diii came out. Price between 5Dii and 5Diii is a big chunk of change. <br>

Also, thinking of doing more low light. What are the comparison of 7D, 5Dii and 5Diii in low light?<br>

Considering the above, what would you do?</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'd get a refurbished 5D MkII and save myself around $1700</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd start by loosing the idea that you need FF. I'm no Canon user, but I know the 7D is a really seriously nice camera. And for macro, its smaller sensor actually can be an advantage (bit more DoF). So I'd start by trying to do whatever you want to do with the 7D, and see whether you actually run into limits. If you already do: what limits?</p>

[Brad_]

If you really need a FF, then I'd listen to Bob up above...

[christopher_diao1]

<p>I am also inclined to get an refurbished 5Dii.</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>in fact, I got all my bodies for refurbished. Currently, I cannot find any refurbished 5Dii</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>+1 to what Wouter said. The 7D is a lovely camera and is better for Macro or Sport than a FF. FF may be better for Landscape (don't know as I don't shoot landscape) but I would suggest looking at getting some top class glass before looking to upgrade to FF.</p>

<p>I owned a 7D until it was stolen. I had a windfall so I spent the insurance money and windfall on a 5DIII. It feel lovely (because it is the same great body as the 7D) but is more challenging to use due to the narrower DOF. It took me a couple of weeks to get used to it and I also lost some distance when shooting sports due to the larger sensor.</p>

 

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>For low light work - I would recommend that you look at the in-depth reviews on dpreview.com They the ability to show side by side comparisons of noise levels at various ISO's</p>

<p>"In general" you will find that, within the same generation of sensors and processors and having the same MP, that a full frame camera will have less noise than a crop sensor. But that's a lot of moving parts to consider. A 6 year old camera with 12MP crop sensor may have less noise than a new camera with 22MP full frame sensor.</p>

<p>Again, look at dpreview comparisons and decide.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree with others that you don't NECESSARILY need a FF camera. It really depends on what you're doing and what you want the camera to do for you. For most people's needs, there is really very little difference between the formats, except cost. However, some people do need FF for what they're doing, and for some people, a crop camera is the better choice. Still other people like shooting with both formats, depending on what they're doing.</p>

<p>I wrote the following article for those people agonizing about choice of format. You might find it useful:<br>

<a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>If you've got 15 EF lenses (i.e. not EF-S), then you may get more out of them on a FF body. However, the way you use those lenses will change. You will have to rethink what lenses you carry with you for a given task. While this might seem obvious, there is quite a difference between realizing the fact and living the realities of daily shooting.</p>

<p>As for 5DII vs. 5dIII, I really haven't a clue what to say. I'm wanting to upgrade to higher ISO capabilities than my 5D (original) gives me, and I was first very excited about the 5DIII. The more I read/see, though, the more I think the 5DII might be just as good a choice for me, as I am not very impressed with the 5DIII's shadow detail at low ISO (somewhat of a deal breaker).</p>

<p>What I glean about low light performance is that it is gained at a substantial cost to dynamic range, which really makes sense if you think about it. As such, I'm not sure it's really all I would hope it to be. You should consider the implications of a shallow dynamic range when contemplating high ISO shooting, because I think that's your reality.</p>

 

[abbas_haider]

<p>Go with new Tech get yourself MKIII if the price is the issue wait a while and it will drop further,</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>The three is definitely not worth it, go for the 5D II. I know in Canada they are back down to about $2100 CDN, not sure about the US. Keep an eye on Canon's refurbished store for refurbs at about $1800 USD.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I just bought a brand new 5D mkii after the 5D mkiii came out. I don't shoot video (except for an accidental video of the steering wheel and my crotch as I was exiting the car), so many of the refinements on the iii are less important to me. Nor do I much photograph sports or fast moving things, so again....</p>

<p>Actually, your 7D has a more sophisticated AF system than the 5Dmk<strong>ii</strong>, as I understand it, so for the AF features, definitely keep the 7D.<br /> I wouldn't buy the 5D, either version, if it meant getting rid of the 7D. When I get to it, a 7D or 7Dmkii will be my next body, since I am now still shooting with my old 20D. I like the extra reach with APS-C, and would appreciate a more sophisticated focus system (like my old film EOS 3 <em>film</em> camera), even though I don't need it, really.<br /> The new 5Dmkiis are so close in price to the refurbished or used ones right now, that I just bought new after calling to buy a used one and finding out the price of new.</p>

<p>As far as noise? Well I was a user of GAF 500 color slide film which had grain roughly the size of baseballs. So I found 3200 on a 5D to be just swell, and have no problem FOR ME even shooting the mark ii at 25,000.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I think the IQ difference in FF only becomes apparent at print sizes larger than 13x19. How often do you require images that large? Other reasons to go FF are to use FF lenses as they were intended and for the bigger viewfinder. The big area of improvement in the 5DIII is arguably the AF, which won't be of any benefit for landscape and macro.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Get a used 5D2...sell it in two years and upgrade to a used 5D3 which will be about $1800 by then.<br>

I feel so sorry for people who shell out $3-4k on a digital whatever and see 60% depreciation in 3 years. Madness!<br>

The only exception to this was a D700 I bought two years ago on special for $2400, and I sold it three months ago for the same amount. I was just lucky that time.<br>

Sink money into good FX lenses and fast primes if you can. The box that holds the sensor is not so important.<br>

Pretty soon FX will be as cheap as current DX cameras and all that crop factor stuff will go away.</p>

 

[pbizarro]

<p>The 5DMKIII has better built than the 5DMKII, so that may be an important factor, if you shoot in rough environments. Another plus for the 5DMKIII is that the camera is basically a 7D with a full-frame sensor, which is nice. And what this also tells is the 7D still is a hell of a camera!<br>

For me, the 7D is adequate for landscapes and all sorts of photography, but that depends of course on your intended use for your images. It depends on your definition of higher quality image for landscapes.</p>

 

[christopher_diao1]

<p>What if I want to do some event and portrait? (Hopefully, it will pay off some of the cost of my expensive hobby)<br>

Would that change the choice of my bodies?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>If you're looking for partial payback from occasional gigs, I don't think there would be any difference between a 5DIII, a 5DII, your 7D, or even an old Digital Rebel (as long as it's black). Very few people can tell one camera from another, and very few people can appreciate the fine points of image quality in photographs of the size they typically view. What matters most is your ability to create a good/compelling image, and I really think very few people can even recognize even that. Actually what matters most is your ability to promote your work and to land a gig. It has almost nothing to do with the quality of your equipment or your work. So from an equipment standpoint, your camera needs to be black and preferably big. A battery grip helps. I'm being facetious, but only somewhat.</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Sarah, you are absolutely right. Perfect business sense</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ha! If I had perfect business sense, I could probably land more gigs! ;-)</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>You may have perfect business sense. But you may need business sensibility.</p>

[scott_ferris]

I'd get the MkIII, the better AF success rate will pay for itself in a couple of jobs. That makes business sense and is the

primary reason Canon ever sold any 1Ds MkIII's at considerably more than $3,500.

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Anything that 5Diii does worse than 5Dii does?</p>

[scott_ferris]

Reduce your bank balance!

[JDMvW]

<p>I would like to underscore one point made by Sarah.<br>

If you want your rig to look "professional" <em>for the photo hobbyists</em> at the wedding, a battery grip makes it look almost like a 1D-whatever model from a distance even if it is a "Rebel". She's also right that a color other than black will be despised, whatever its actual picture-taking virtues. ;)<br>

It's not facetious at all. </p>

<p>You also have to deal with the likelihood that any "professional" people (in the professions, not a professional photographer) in the audience will probably have more expensive gear than most real professional photographers could afford.</p>

 

[christopher_diao1]

<p>I saw some third party battery grips on Amazon, which got very good reviews. Has anyone tried them?</p>