5Dii or 5Diii

[pierrearnaud]

I recently upgraded from a 5Dc to the 5DIII, and in my opinion, depending on the OP needs, the 5Diii might be worth the

expense. I do mostly candid shots in suboptimal situations, and I find the 5DIII a vast improvement over the 5Dc in

several fields.

 

AF : even with moderately moving subjects, the 5Dc was a headache. I tried the 5DII and didn't find a substantial

difference, which is why I didn't upgrade. I find the 5DIII AF amazingly accurate and fast, even with ther outer focus

points.

 

Exposure : I had to constantly check and compensate with the 5DC. I'm learning to trust the camera with the 5DIII. Not

having to check exposure on the rear LCD means more concentration on the subject, a big plus in my opinion.

 

WB : all over the place with the 5Dc. Vastly more reliable on the 5DIII. Mixed light produced often strange results on the

5Dc. The camera also had a way of turning pictures taken at sunset into standard flat midday scenes. No longer true with

the 5dIII.

 

IQ : the 5Dc gave me all the resolution I needed. But I see a big improvement in tonal transitions, especially at higher iso.

The camera also deals much better with specular highlights such as what you get in night photography. Transitions

between the source of light and the immediate surrounding are smooth, with a considerably larger amount of details. It

feels much more "film-like".

 

Silent mode : very useful not just when you need low noise, but also to shoot handheld at low shutter speed, as it greatly

decreases vibrations.

 

I can't tell how important these improvements may be to the OP. Personnally, they are changing my photographic life.

Until then, I shot color film with a 1v to compensate for some of the weaknesses of the 5Dc. With the 5DIII, film will be

restricted to BW which I want to print in the wet darkroom. For a film Luddite of my kind, this says a lot about the 5diii.

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Thanks Pierre!<br>

It sounds that $1700 between 5Dii and 5Diii is going somewhere......</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Because the excellent performance of the Canon batteries in the 5D2 and 3, I think serious users are better off buying a second battery to keep in their bag rather than going with battery grips. If you're buying a battery grip to look "professional", then just grow up. I know several pros that use the 5D2 and none of them use a battery grip.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't think Sarah, and I know I wasn't, talking about a battery grip on a 5D model. It's big enough in its own right. We were joking about "prestige" when using the Rebel series particularly, which are really very small (one of their virtues, of course).<br>

It's not your <em>own</em> perception either, it's the view of the 'savvy' members of the audience.... ;)</p>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>Yes, I do believe that the price difference between the 5DIII and older generations does get you something, to such an extent that this is the very first camera I purchased brand new. I had always bought my cameras used before, film or digital, including my 5Dc, which I kept for 5 years.</p>

<p>Two features I forgot to mention in my previous post : 1. much shorter shutter lag, greatly improved reactiveness, essential in my eyes as my film background makes very reluctant to use continuous shooting. I try hard to capture the decisive moment in single shot. 2. Flash fill-in : much improved in comparison to the 5Dc. Essentially the camera throws in just the amount of lighting to unobtrusively lift the shadows. </p>

<p>Here's a picture of my son, poor light, 6400iso, f:4.0 125th, 135mm/2.0. He was doing a pseudo kung fu demo, hence lots of erratic movements. Relying on the reactiveness of the camera to capture the right moment, its ability to focus swiftly and accurately in poor lighting with outer focus point (on the left eye), was essential to the success of this shot. I find the tonal transitions very subtle for such high iso. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16110933</p>

<p>Sorry for just posting a link. I am unable to display the picture directly in this post. Surely I'm doing something wrong.</p>

<p><img src="../photo/16110933" alt="" /></p><div></div>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>Yes, I do believe that the price difference between the 5DIII and older generations does get you something, to such an extent that this is the very first camera I purchased brand new. I had always bought my cameras used before, film or digital, including my 5Dc, which I kept for 5 years.</p>

<p>Two features I forgot to mention in my previous post : 1. much shorter shutter lag, greatly improved reactiveness, essential in my eyes as my film background makes very reluctant to use continuous shooting. I try hard to capture the decisive moment in single shot. 2. Flash fill-in : much improved in comparison to the 5Dc. Essentially the camera throws in just the amount of lighting to unobtrusively lift the shadows. </p>

<p>Here's a picture of my son, poor light, 6400iso, f:4.0 125th, 135mm/2.0. He was doing a pseudo kung fu demo, hence lots of erratic movements. Relying on the reactiveness of the camera to capture the right moment, its ability to focus swiftly and accurately in poor lighting with outer focus point (on the left eye), was essential to the success of this shot. I find the tonal transitions very subtle for such high iso. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16110933</p>

<p>Sorry for just posting a link. I am unable to display the picture directly in this post. Surely I'm doing something wrong.</p>

<p><img src="../photo/16110933" alt="" /></p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Because the excellent performance of the Canon batteries in the 5D2 and 3, I think serious users are better off buying a second battery to keep in their bag rather than going with battery grips. If you're buying a battery grip to look "professional", then just grow up. I know several pros that use the 5D2 and none of them use a battery grip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oddly enough, I agree. I don't shoot with a grip either. I hate the added bulk and weight, and I like my batteries to deplete one by one, rather than together. That said, many people getting started in photography can "wow" the client with size/bulk, length of lens, lighting stands, and other things considered unusual. Only last night I was at a reunion being shot by a college kid. He danced around with a radio slave flash on a stand. Although he clearly didn't know what he was doing with that light, it still did impress people.</p>

<p>Oh, I forgot: Don't forget the sunshade on the lens -- makes it look bigger. (I hate sunshades too.)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Whilst there might be a certain percentage of users that buy into grips for looks, and I fully understand some people that want lighter and smaller, there shouldn't be a looking down the nose at people who do use grips, especially modern ones that greatly increase the ergonomics and functionality.</p>

<p>Shooting portrait orientation for a day without a second shutter button is very inefficient. Add in the second joystick on the 5D MkIII grip, the additional battery capacity, or wireless functionality etc etc that grips can give and there are very valid reasons to go for grips. Personally I have used grips since 1978 because my hands are big and fat and I find cameras without grips uncomfortable after a comparatively short time. Alternatively I could chop off my little finger I suppose :-)</p>

<p>I have never shown a client my camera before being commissioned so find that a strange point to make.</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Pierre,<br>

Your comparison is between 5D and 5Diii.<br>

I am looking for comparison between 5Dii and 5Diii</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Scott, just to be clear, I'm not looking down my nose at photogs who use grips. Rather, I'm rolling my eyes at laypeople who think/say, "Wow, that's a big camera. You must take great pictures." I fully realize photographers gotta' do what they gotta' do -- grip, no grip, whatever.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have a 5D2. I think the 5D3 sounds like a great camera that improves on the 5D3 in real ways. I'm not going to upgrade. </p>

<p>For certain types of photography, the 5D2 will perform essentially as well as the 5D3, as fine a camera as the newer model is. Landscape photography is one of these. Although I don't do a lot of macro, it is hard for me to see the concrete difference in potential there either. </p>

<p>If I did not already have a 5D2 and I was going to buy a new 5D-type body and cost was not an issue and I wanted to do a wide range of types of photography... I would purchase the 5D3. However, if cost is an issue and the sorts of photography you do will not depend upon the newer features of the 5D2 then the 5D2 is going to be just fine.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>About "wowing" the client (or other photographers? Or family members?) with by attaching a grip to the camera, thereby making it look bigger and more "pro" - this has precisely the opposite effect on me when I see it. To date myself a bit, it seems a bit like painting flames on the side of your Rambler. </p>

<p>My preference is to have a camera that is not larger or heavier than it needs to be. I know some will tell you that they "need" the grip so that their shutter finger is in the same position whether the camera is vertical or horizontal. However, there is an equal argument for not having to move your hand/finger to a new position when you rotate the camera - simply rotate your hand position and shoot. And, frankly, this becomes so automatic that it is done without thought. And adding two additional batteries to the camera? Why? Most shooters won't go through a single battery in a full day of their shooting. And if they do, simply carrying an extra battery is lighter and more compact than adding the weight and bulk of the grip.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that I cannot imagine a few odd situations in which the grip might be useful for a few folks, but I have to say that the practical benefits are essentially nil in the vast majority of cases - and those who do it because they think "real photographers" have larger camera bodies are often creating the opposite impression from they one they hoped for.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[pierrearnaud]

Christopher,

 

I'm well avare of that. It seems to me that what I'm saying is still valid, for instance regarding AF, exposure and

reactiveness, as the 5Dc and 5dII were largely similar in these departments, at least from my tests with the 5DII. It is

essentially because I didn't find sgnificant improvements in these areas that I skipped the 5DII.

 

As regards other areas, such as flash fill in, highlights detail, etc,, maybe someone with more experience with the 5Dc

and 5dII might be able to tell to what extent what I said applies to a 5DII / III comparison.

[joel_tomaneng2]

<p>Based on this post and other posts regarding your need for AEB and HDR, I'd get the 5DMkIII, or even look into a 1D-series. If you're concerned about the $1700 price difference, I'd look into selling some of your EF Collection (or one of the other 2 bodies) to make up the difference. 15 EF Lenses? You could probably get rid of a few of them and not miss them too much. I sold my 5D and three rarely used EF/EF-S lenses to get me in the ballpark of a 60D price range. I haven't missed the old equipment yet.</p>