Is the 5D Mark II still the best camera out there for the money?

[angkordave]

<p>Its interesting that the mirror less camera like the Olympus OMD are getting so good now that the some of the larger cams are looking very outdated. I bought a Canon G1X in Sept to complement my 5D2 for travel as I was waiting for Canon to replace the 7D . The G1X has impressed me with its image quality, esp in low light. It is far better than my old Nikon D300S ever was. its about a stop lower compared to the 5D2 and the DR is pretty well equal if not marginally better due to its Digic 4 processor. I'm often using this in preference to the heavyweight 5D2 where I don't need speed or use ultra wide lenses.<br>

The future must be mirror less; and will be for Canon once they get a decent interchangeable lens cam with a proper EVF viewfinder. Otherwise I'll go the Sony NEX of Olympus route.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>The future must be mirror less;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep an eye on the Canon EOS-1D C. Soon you can rip a high resolution still image from the video. </p>

[angkordave]

<p>I hardly think the Monster EOS1DC is going to be a substitute for a compact mirror less camera but the concept of hi def video which you can take high quality stills from looka like the future but in a small compact interchangeable lens body<br>

Going back to the original question I would probably buy a Nikon D600 if I was choosing now.</p>

 

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I hardly think the Monster EOS1DC is going to be a substitute for a compact mirror less camera... [Dave Perkes]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Easy there big guy. I never said it was going to be a substitute.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Going back to the original question I would probably buy a Nikon D600 if I was choosing now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I ordered the D600 and shot it on one outing before returning it. I was underwhelmed, to be quite honest. I did get the D800E, and I have no complaints with it, except that it is not the best in low light, in my opinion. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

It will be interesting in a few years when compact mirrorless pocket cams are taking 4k video, as the 1D C does today.

The ability to pull quality frames from video clips could spell the end of still photography for the casual shooter. The

perfect moment with the best smile and they eyes open will always be in there somewhere. Just scrub through, pick your

frame, upload it to FB and delete the rest. That's the holy grail for many people, even pros in event and journalistic

shooting,

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>...video clips could spell the end of still photography... [Dan South]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In two years, video will kill the wedding still photographer's career. The wedding videographer will be in control of wedding assignments and pricing. Expect the videographer to make a tidy profit per assignment.</p>

[alexandra_berman]

<p>I used the Mark III that i borrowed from my friend, wow i love it. I will invest and pay extra cash to get this new camera. here there is a link and you can see a video shot by 5D Mark III. http://www.empowernetwork.com/xicabella/blog/canon-5d-mark-iii/?id=xicabella The picturs is amazing!</p>

[angkordave]

<p>I have just been working this week with a photographer who has a new Canon 6D so have been able make comparisons with the 5D Mk 2.<br /> Build quality of the 6D is solid, low light performance is a bit higher and but overall image quality appears little different to 5D2 or 5D3.<br /> The spread of focus points in the viewfinder are similar to 5D2 but there is a big improvement in low light focusing.<br /> I don’t like the new arrangement of buttons which bear some resemblance to the 60D which I have used; so 60d users will feel at home I’m sure.<br /> The lack of on board flash controller and tilting LCD is an unforgivable omission which is not compensated by wi/fi or GPS.<br /> There is is no auto focus on video too which mean that a 5D3 would be better for this.<br /> I’ll wait for a 7d mk 2 before I make any decision; as the advantage of FF over APS are not as great as many people may think. I prefer the faster frame rate; lens reach on board flash and focusing of the 7D over the 6D in any case.<br>

The 60D ticks more boxes than the 6D as it has the tilting screen, on board flash and faster frame rate and its half the price.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 5D2 is still the excellent camera it has always been, and for many purposes and for many shooters it will be as good as the 6D or even the 5D3. However, the question of value for price - which is sort of what I think underlies the original question - cannot be clear cut. (In other words, we could debate it for weeks and still not come to any agreement.)</p>

<p>Clearly the newer cameras introduce features and, to some extent, capabilities that go beyond what the 5D2 can do. For example, the AF system seems to be improved and the 6D adds wireless capability and so forth. So progress and improvement in camera design continues. No surprise there! In terms of image quality, while careful measurements can show that the newer cameras also continue the process of incremental improvement here, too, the effect of these improvements is, to be blunt, very small and in many cases insignificant. </p>

<p>I have a 5D2 and before the newer cameras were introduced I had speculated about and prepared for the possibility that i would upgrade to the newer model (specifically the camera that became the 5D3) if it offered significant improvements that would affect the quality of my photography in significant ways. When it was announced it was clear that the 5D3 was a very fine camera - I have no complaints about it at all - but also that incremental or insignificant differences that it would make in my photographs would not be worth the cost of the upgrade. So I continue to happily shoot with a 5D2.</p>

<p>But that it an upgrade decision, which is very different from a new camera purchase decision on the part of a person who may not have a full frame camera already. Here things get a bit more complicated and nuanced, I think. A few thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>Plenty of people who think they need a full frame camera actually probably do not. If your main output is, for example, shared online jogs, either placed on the web or mailed to friends and family, the current cropped sensor cameras will produce image quality this is essentially indistinguishable from that you'll get from the full frame bodies. Yes, I know there are potential differences in things like DOF, but for the majority of folks getting a DSLR, these things turn out to be pretty minor issues. </li>

<li>All three of the full frame bodies are capable of producing absolutely first rate image quality. There is no question that people have been producing and continue to produce absolutely beautiful photographic prints using the 5D2 and the newer cameras equal its capability - though the real world effect of the small improvements is unlikely to be seen in a print.</li>

<li>If cost is no object at all and you are getting a new full frame body, you can certainly get the 5D3 and know that you are getting a fine camera with somewhat improved AF capabilities.</li>

<li>If you are convinced that you need a new full frame body, then the 6D comes at a more attractive price point and is clearly a very functional camera with some interesting features. </li>

<li>If you need full frame and are price sensitive, and especially if you tend to shoot from the tripod, the 5D2 is going to work essentially as well as the other two.</li>

</ul>

<p>I guess that if you are weighing the feature and cost differences, the actual price difference will matter. I suppose that if a 6D costs, say, 25% more than the 5D2 that your decision might be different that if the price turned out to be only 10% higher. </p>

<p>In the end, for the vast majority of photographers, any of these three bodies will produce great photographic quality.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>In terms of image quality, while careful measurements can show that the newer cameras also continue the process of incremental improvement here, too, the effect of these improvements is, to be blunt, very small and in many cases insignificant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, in general I would agree with this comment, but in the case of the 6D over its peers and predecessors, I would MAYBE have to disagree. I had posted a link to a very thorough review of the 6D in this thread that seemed to draw a yawn from everyone:</p>

<p><a href="00bAjt">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bAjt</a></p>

<p>The camera was compared objectively, in a controlled manner, against the 5DII, the 5DIII, and Nikon's offerings. (Sometimes it was necessary to compare across reviews from the same reviewer, but they could all be compared objectively, using numeric data and standardized sample photos.</p>

<p>What stood out for me was that the 6D seemed vastly improved in high-ISO RAW dynamic range, shadow noise, and color, with respect to the 5DIII. I could not decide whether resolution was also just a bit better at high ISOs. My subjective examination of the sample photos would suggest that resolution was perhaps a bit poorer in the 6D; however, their numbers suggest the opposite, with about a 1-stop advantage of the 6D over the 5DIII as resolution customarily erodes with increasing ISO.</p>

<p>Many of my conclusions were derived from my own controlled manipulation of full-resolution sample "RAW" images that had been made available in jpg form. (That is, the cameras did not create the jpgs themselves, but rather the RAWs were converted to jpgs in the computer, one would hope/presume using the same conversion settings.) I greatly enhanced the contrast of the shadows of these photos, mapping 0 -> 0 and 63 -> 255. The colors of the 6D were remarkably true, in contrast with the 5DIII, whose colors were quite noticeably hue shifted, probably due to linearity differences between channels. Shadow noise in the 6D was remarkably low -- much better than the 5DIII.</p>

<p>None of this performance comes for free, though. Very fine-detail textures appeared somewhat plasticky compared to the 5DIII, although overall detail of a normal-sized image (not extremely pixel-peeped) appeared comparable. I look forward to having a set of real RAW images to compare, but for now I have to say I am impressed with the 6D. My impression is that the 6D is a dumbed-down, high-ISO, low-noise mean-machine.</p>

<p>To address the query of the OP, which was exactly the same as my own question, I saw sufficient improvement in the 6D over the 5DII in image quality properties that really matter to me (shadow noise being a perpetual problem in some of my shooting locations) that I decided I did not need to bite at a 5DII at this time. Instead, I will be watching as further impressions of the 6D become available, and I'll be waiting for the 6D prices to drop. If I ultimately decide the 6D isn't the right camera for me, then I'll probably pick up a refurb 5DII.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I really think the Canon 5D Mark II is the best full frame camera for the value. I bought mine in September after the announcement of the 6D. At the time the the body was $1900 and the newly announced 6D was $2200, after I had bought it for about 3 weeks B&H lowered the price down to $1700 and thanks to their excellent customer service they gave me a $200 refund. If you don't shoot fast action its AF is fine and its IQ is a world ahead of those APS-C bodies. Canon 5D Mark II is $1800, Canon 6D is $2000 and Canon 5D Mark III is $2975, the difference between the 5D II and 6D can buy you a battery grip and if you have invested in a lot expensive CF cards choosing the 5D II over the 6D is a no brainer. The difference between the 5D II and 5D III can buy you a 7D. </p>

[editorialwebsite]

<p>I have shot with the 5DII and at the time I loved it. But I had already bought the 7D as it was more within my budget at the time and since I had only cropped sensor lenses from my 20D(which my 7 year old daughter likes to use), it made more sense at the time. <br>

When I was looking for a second body, I did look at the 6D but the focusing wasn't as good as my 7D, and it used SD cards and I'm heavily invested in CF. Also since I shoot in all kinds of weather conditions the 6D didn't have the weather sealed body like my 7D. Sure it's a great little full frame camera, but that was it.<br>

Now when I held and tried out the 5DIII it felt right, like this was the camera for me. I tested it, and I loved it and now I have it. </p>