Buying Canon 5D Mark II

JimStrauss

JimStrauss

Active member
Hello everyone,

I think at my age technology has caught up or surpassed me so that's why I'm finally getting into the HD business. Time to retire my trustworthy DVX100A.

As a starter, I love taking videos and stills. From what I've researched, this is a great camera for both. I only plan on spending roughly $5000, what would you recommend in terms of lenses, memory cards etc.

If this thread has already been dealt with, my apologies but thank you for taking the time to stop and read it anyway.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Strauss.
 
Hello,
Question about lenses. 24-105, 35mm F 2.0 and the 50mm 1.8. This is what was recommended to me to get my feet wet. What are the pros and cons, do they work well in low light?

Also, any thoughts on the Lumix GH2 compared to the 5D in terms of video quality?

Thank you and sorry if I've wasted anyone's time.
 
If you're going to go the 5d route (great, great camera, but now comparatively soft on video), consider the Contax Zeiss 28-85. Nice, usable range, focusses the correct direction, zeiss glass look. Also, lucky man, if you do get with the 5d now, you can use the new panavision preset, an upgrade to an already great camera (unless your goal is max resolution, in which case there are better choices).
 
good choice on lenses

don't get GH2 if you're into photography & only buying one camera... photos are s*it, honestly... Video quality is much higher resolution on GH2 (1080p okay on canon, 720 is not...). If you shoot urban stuff be aware of aliasing. Rolling shutter on GH2 about x2 worse than the canons IMO, but then again maybe you don't plan either kitesurf or guerilla style war peices... Another option is of course to buy a t3i + GH2. Although, if using two DSLR's and mixing their usage, you may wanna be more open minded on lenses, there is a m4/3 mount electronic adapter for EOS coming out soon but it's gonna retail for 700 bucks, so.

IMO 5dmk2 is still the dslr with nicest video, it's a so-so codec and if you're picky you see all sorts of flaws in the image (especially compared to GH2) BUT once you convert it, edit, and save it... the estetics of the image is just fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies.

So the best overall camera is the 5D but in terms of video quality the GH2 outperforms it?

Thanks
 
Technically GH2 is far superior. But aesthetics is, in my opinion, always the bigger factor. I think all of them GH1/2/AF100) has more of a 16mm film look to them, while Canon (and especially Mark2) has that additional range that gives it a 35mm look. Also i think the infamous aliasing makes the details in a shot "crawl" and adding to the filmic look, grain, sort of... GH2 is more video-isch looking simply because it's so sharp & clean, but that doesn't mean you can't get a filmic feel to the image in post/choice of lenses.

They're all great cameras, honestly. Oh, and if picky with quality... GH2 kinda feel like a toy compared to even the platic Canon bodies. The screen is kinda bad too, but clean HDMI out for external monitor is an option.
 
Thank you for the input.

So many options, just have to make a choice and no worry too much about all the flavors.

This is probably a stupid question but would I be able to use Canon lenses with the GH2?

Thanks again for all your help
 
Before everyone turns on me and becomes annoyed with my questions, I think I'll just buy a Canon 5D. Although from what I've researched, the GH2 really is terrific I just think the wide variety of lenses available for canon tips the scales for me.

Thanks, you've been helpful.
 
I also bought the 5D just last month to partner my 7D. Great aesthetic look it it, slightly better than 7D. More "organic" than the GH series. On a technical dissecting table the GH2 produces the technically better image but the "flaws" of the 5D produces the "softness" which is closer to 35mm film image than the GH2 whose image looks like great looking HD Digital Video.

Your lenses are good choices although for me, i'd not get the 35 but instead, either get something longer or wider.
 
I agree, you may be better off with the gh2. It has no mirror box, so it can take just about any lens out there. just need an adapter. And there's some beautiful old vintage glass for cheap money on ebay. Just remember with dslr's you need some sort of shoulder support or stabalizer. Their to small to hold for any period of time, and very tough to get smooth steady shots unless you have image stabalized lenses, which most older lenses dont.

Have you looked into the hmc 150? it's a camcorder (HD), you should be very comfortable shooting with it after shooting with the dvx100 for so long. The af100 is another good cam. It has an interchangeable lens mount that also has the same feel as a traditional camcorder. With that you would still need glass, but like the gh2, you can adapt almost any lens to it.

The canons are great, I use both the gh2 and the t3i. I still prefer a camcorder with a dof adapter, but thats just me, I like the look of the ground glass, and the grain it creates. It's a very organic filmy look. But it does consume lots of light, they eat about a 1/2 -to 1 stop. But if you light your scenes, it not that big a deal, just takes longer.

GOOD luck with your purchase, whatever cam it is :)

See the dslr's are great, but by the time you guy all the gear needed to make it feel the same as a regular camera, you may spend as much or more. not to mention lenses.
 
On the glass......while I do own a 50 1.8 I would def recommend spitting out a few extra bucks and get the 50 1.4. The focus wheel alone did it for me. (not to mention the extra light.) Like many say here, the camera may get swapped out every few years but the glass is always gonna stay with you.
 
So to end the mystery, Pacey isn't dead. Nobody ever really dies Mr. Mulder

I got the 5D with the 24-70mm f2.8L

Thanks again everyone.
 
Hello again,

Too much research can fog someone's judgement but I am looking for an honest answer. Should I buy a mic for my camera, is it a waste of money or is it only beneficial if I buy a mic and a separate recorder that goes with it? Then another question is, what do you recommend?

I apologize to anyone who is annoyed at the question.

Strauss
 
Last edited:
I have found the Zoom H1 to be an excellent audio recorder. The Rode Videomic gives pretty good results, especially with the ability to disengage AGC. I have a 7d and so I use the H1 because AGC cannot be turned off.

The main benefit to using the Videomic is that your audio will be included with your video file. Using an external audio recorder will necessitate using software such as Plural Eyes, or at the very least, using a clapper or something similar in order to later synchronize the clips in your NLE.
 
JimStrauss said:
Hello again,

Too much research can fog someone's judgement but I am looking for an honest answer. Should I buy a mic for my camera, is it a waste of money or is it only beneficial if I buy a mic and a separate recorder that goes with it? Then another question is, what do you recommend?

Strauss
Click to expand...

Its a good question ,

I recommend you buy a mic that goes to a separate recorder.

I have an AKG shotgun going to a ZOOM h4n.

While the Zoom has good audio quality, it is a power hog and you need a powerful rechargable + activating stamina mode to get more time of use.

My friend replaced his with the Tascam dr100 and he says it lasts longer with batteries, so check out both zoom and tascam.
 
I wouldn't buy a 5D mark ii, for starters its a 3 year old camera. Canon is surely to update it soon. If I were you I would buy a GH2 or used 7D for under $1200, You can then wait for the 5D mark III or AF200 or whatever, which im sure are going to be significant upgrades considering the time interval between updates.
 
Thanks again everyone for the terrific feedback.

The RODE videomic is what I've been reading about from others as well. Does it come with a headphone jack, how will I be able to monitor the sound besides playback on the camera or have I answered my own question? For dialogue purposes, mono is better than stereo, correct?

Strauss
 
JimStrauss said:
Thanks again everyone for the terrific feedback.

The RODE videomic is what I've been reading about from others as well. Does it come with a headphone jack, how will I be able to monitor the sound besides playback on the camera or have I answered my own question? For dialogue purposes, mono is better than stereo, correct?

Strauss
Click to expand...

Strauss,

While the Rode mic is good, and while the 5D now was adjustable audio, I would still strongly recommend 2nd system sound and use the 5D's own mic and sound as guide track for syncing in post.

There are those that will say its good enough, but if you are serious about the audio aspect of your work , and if you are doing a lot of dialog or interviews, the best practice way to do it is a decent sound recorder with a decent mic attached to it via xlr. You can monitor this properly with decent padded headphones.

This is the best practice way to do it.
 
i would NEVER use the built in audio of ANY current DSLR for crucial sound. they just arent designed for production sound. thats a big part of why they can fit so much image processing into a small footprint. they pretty much totally ignore sound.

some would accurately argue that the same goes for most (or any) video cameras.
but the audio segment of a proper video camera FAR exceeds that of any DSLR.
 
I would get a Rode VideoMic (or Pro if fits your budget), then either an H4N or the Tascam DR-100 (I use the Tascam) with a good quality wireless lav (Sennheiser G3 for instance) for sit-down interviews if you plan on shooting this type of video. Even though the DSLR's internal audio is, rightfully, bashed, there will definitely be times when you will find the recorded audio useful, and the VideoMic will remove handling noises from the feed, which is crucial, in addition to giving you better sound than what the built-in mic will get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top