2x 5D MKII's or 1x 5D MKIII? Arguments for and against?
Hi. I recently sold my 5D with the intention of putting that money toward two 5D MKII's - two bodies primarily for stills work. Two bodies would be nice.
However, the MKIII and its improved video functions (audio monitoring, less moire) is very tempting.
The MKIII is newer tech - a better camera, though not by much for stills.
In Thailand one MKIII body is slightly cheaper than two MKII's.
Any thoughts?
Go with the mk3 and get another lens! You can always use another lens, no?
Ah, no I can't.Originally Posted by Bertzie
I have enough L series glass!!!
Are you the only user of the cameras? If so..
The advantage would be you could walk around with two bodies with two different high quality lenses. That way you can switch real fast when needed. That or if you need to do a multicam shoot with two cameras and wish to have a very, very, very easy match of picture. Those are the only two reasons I can imagine right now why you'd want two bodies. Otherwise I'd get a MKIII, if at all.
Exactly. The MKIII's I-Frame is tempting, as is the faster, more accurate AF with moving subjects and slightly cleaner high ISO's, but it's so expensive.
I'll sleep on it. Brain overload.
But don't forget there is a drawback of having two bodies, they typically don't talk to each other to inform each other about the latest news.I can imagine you change a setting on one and forget it on the other or so. And perhaps, if you really need to switch fast, isn't it interesting to replace some glass?
Get the newer one. Go with the newer tech. And enjoy it!
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Thanks guys. Yes, Bif, the newer tech is very tempting. I am torn between two bodies for my stills work (no problems there BarteS as I come from a documentary photography background and am used to running multiple bodies) and the MKIII's improvements in usability. With the sale of my 5D body the price for a new 5D MKIII in Bangkok is almost reasonable.
If you are a pro shooter- stills or video, you need backups for everything. If money is not on the line, one body is fine.
As a caveat. I 'retired' from still business i 2004 and bought a point and shoot on a lark, never shooting for money afterwards. The darn Nikon coolpix have lasted me through tens of thousands of shots and have never failed me! Solid state rules!
Yes, they are a lot of fun but ultimately frustrating due to their lack of responsiveness and speed.
I'd go for 2 MkII's.
A backup is essential for any serious work.
Also, the MkII has now also been hacked by Magic Lantern, so you do get some extra functions the MkIII has.
Finally, the MkIII seems to be a bit softer than the MkII.
So I'd know what to do.
If it's just for video, I wouldn't even consider the MkIII, but go for a Panasonic AF100. Very underrated and can be bought for relatively little money these days.
5d2 is just an entry level pro stills cam, there is much better.
Whatever.
I'd suggest that "high end photographer" might want to get his eyes checked. I know about 20 people making a living with that camera. The 5DMKii is simply one of the best stills cams you can buy. Whether you're a fashion or sports photographer.
Aye. I've decided on a MKIII in about two months time. Can't wait.
Two older bodies always beats one new body. I was in the same predicament until I decided on buying a 5dmkII and a 7D instead of a 5dmkIII. That way you can utilize the full frame sensor as well as the crop sensor when needed, use the different advantages of each body (frame rates?) and you have a backup body for when the inevitable happens. I wouldn't want to walk into a paid gig with a fancy new 5dmkIII but no backup in case it fails. Just my thoughts! It depends on what you shoot, though.
Today I went and bought a 5D MKIII, the battery is charging. It's mostly for stills, but as soon as I have time to shoot some clips in the neighbourhood I'll post them.
And yeah, I like the 7D but not with my L lenses. The 7D with the 18-135mm is a fine camera.
You were doubly fast!
Congrats!
Aye. A bit premature. I have to be careful with money for the next two months but thought it was about time to commit.
Why wouldn't you want to use an L lens on the 7d?
My lenses because of their focal lenths. I use a 24-70mm, 100mm and 135 f2. They are just too long. Other L lenses perhaps, but I have a strange loathing of crop cameras. More a disappointment that the industry didn't stick with the '35mm' standard. My theory is that if it had the advancements would huge rather than splitting lines and engineering divisions, etc.
I'd love to peek into a parallel world in which all manufacturers had stuck with fullframe. But the writing was on the wall with the fecking Minolta Vectis 40 (which I owned by the way. Oh, the shame!).
http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Vectis40.html
Why did they go with crop sensors anyways? Are they cheaper to manufacture?
Yes. Sensor (=chip) prices go up a lot faster than the area of the chip. It's due to the much lower yield of larger chips from a silicon wafer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
