Is buying a 5Dmkii a better bet right now over a 6D?

J

jrm27

Active member
Hello all,

I've been waiting patiently to buy my next camera. All signs said "wait and see" on the 6D. There are things I like about the 6D: the lightness of the body, the wifi, the low light sensitivity, etc.. However, for the majority of things I'm thinking I could be just as happy with a used mkII. I was hoping (as I think many were), that the upgraded video quality of the mkIII would come to the 6D. According to reviews and tests, it looks like that may not be the case.

So, does the 6D offer anything from the video side that the mkII doesn't? Besides expanded low-light capability?

I'll be using the camera for stills too, and I love the images out of the mkII. Unfortunately, price is an issue and the mkIII is just too far out of my ballpark.

Perhaps this question is about premature since the 6D JUST came out, but I thought I'd at least bring it up.

-jon
 
Since I was debating the same thing the past week I'll chime in in. I just grabbed a used 5D2 off ebay for under $1500. There are a lot up for sale right now and it will allow you $600 additional to play with for lenses rather than the 6D. The presence of moire in the 6D footage that seems to be as bad or worse than the 5D2 was the clincher for me. Also if I want to resell the 5D2 I think I'll take less of a loss at least in the short term. Look for one with a low shot count and confirm the sensor is clean.
 
I have had a similar debate going on. However because I do make about 30% of my income off the stills I must admit the 6D does have more advantages in the photo world I am excited about.

If however you are looking STRICTLY at video, then I suppose a used MK2 is also a good choice if you really want the full frame look. I was really hoping the images would be moire free like the 5D3 but they are not, and I was hoping for a headphone jack.. but there isn't... the alternate recording methods may be something you are interested in like the ALl-I etc.... As for the increased ISO.... I mean there have been times when I craved full frame because I use a 7D and t2i and occasionally when I need to go over iso800 I cringe. However when people start pushing past 1600 I simply make sure I bring some lights or sun guns.... I know sometimes wedding people say they can't use lights so maybe they take advantage of those massive iso's but for everything I do (in video) a used MK2 might be the way to go if I'm not willing to jump RIGHT up to the MK3.

********Side note, you could buy a used 5DII and the anti-moire filter for about the price of the 6D
 
Used MK2 has been for months and remains THE steal of the used market. I have seen them on local Craigslist for as low as $1200. There are marginally "better" DSLRs out there (video/stills combo), but not significantly better, not yet.
 
Thanks all.. this is kinda what I was figuring the result would be. PLease keep the input coming. Either purchase represents a big chunk of change for me, so I'm trying to be thorough!

Plazer, what specific benefits are you seeing for still photography?
 
jrm27 said:
Hello all,

I've been waiting patiently to buy my next camera. All signs said "wait and see" on the 6D. There are things I like about the 6D: the lightness of the body, the wifi, the low light sensitivity, etc.. However, for the majority of things I'm thinking I could be just as happy with a used mkII.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting with the MK2 for a long time and I don't really see much improvements in the new releases. If you shoot primarily in very low light than the MK3 is more sensitive, but if you use it in daylight or sets with lighting the MK2 is great. Also with the softening reports about the MK3 to combat moire, I would prefer an MK2 with an AA filter from the tests I've seen. I shoot everything ultra flat and add contrast in post which may be why I've seem so little moire without an AA filter.
You need to look at where you want to be in another year. The MK2 is a great camera and image producer, but the technology will really be at the end of it's cycle as will the 6D soon. I'd find a good used deal on a 5Dmk2 or a new one. You will loose the least amount of money in a year when you sell it. I don't think the 6D will hold it's value as well. Remember the 6D is already branded as an "entry level" camera with an over 2 grand price tag. Doesn't make sense to me, because beginners usually want to spend as little as possible and Pros who make money don't care much about the price. So who's gonna buy your used 6D next year?
With the BMCC and many other competitors clearly preparing to launch the next generation of cameras with raw 12bit and high dynamic range which is the key. keep your expenses down as much as possible for the next 12 months.
 
Last edited:
If you want full frame there is NO better deal than a 5d Mark II. Now if you want a hybrid camera there is NO better deal than a Panasonic GH3. Finally if you want a true cinema camera than NO better camera than the BMCC.

Mark II has a certain beautiful look I love, Panasonic GH3 though you are able to shoot beautiful wide shots and have higher resolution though.

6d is a flop, no way in the world I would buy it.... Mark III is a great choice, but at $3000 and me doing strictly video it makes no sense. Now if you are a pro photographer then yes, otherwise buy a Mark II or GH3.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the video is pretty much the same then I would probably go for a new 6D over a used 5D2. You get warranty on the 6D (at least a year here in the UK) & it won't be beaten up (yes I do know how tough the 5D2 is but we are still talking used here). The AF & high ISO is better on the 6D
 
nigelbb said:
Assuming that the video is pretty much the same then I would probably go for a new 6D over a used 5D2. You get warranty on the 6D (at least a year here in the UK) & it won't be beaten up (yes I do know how tough the 5D2 is but we are still talking used here). The AF & high ISO is better on the 6D
Click to expand...


People are selling the 5d Mark II for $1400-$1500 with warranty... heck I just seen one with a lens + 10 month warranty for $1400.
 
J.F.R. said:
If you want full frame there is NO better deal than a 5d Mark II. Now if you want a hybrid camera there is NO better deal than a Panasonic GH3. Finally if you want a true cinema camera than NO better camera than the BMCC.

Mark II has a certain beautiful look I love, Panasonic GH3 though you are able to shoot beautiful wide shots and have higher resolution though.

6d is a flop, no way in the world I would buy it.... Mark III is a great choice, but at $3000 and me doing strictly video it makes no sense. Now if you are a pro photographer then yes, otherwise buy a Mark II or GH3.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this..but I think the GH2 is the best deal going for hybrids, maybe one of the best for all cameras. The GH3 is certainly better in a one to one comparison, but the GH2 at current prices is just a steal.
 
One of the interesting features was the ability to remote view and remote control the 6D with your smartphone (using the EOS Utility app over wi-fi).

However, I have just confirmed that this feature is disabled in Movie mode.

Oh well.
 
The Mk2 is a nice proven camera. For stills. it's top notch. Mk3 is a better stills camera (and to me video camera). Plus, you can hack the Mk2 with Magic lantern which is a real plus for video work. I have all three 5d's and won't sell any of them. But to me the Mk3 is king of the 5d's.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with most of this..but I think the GH2 is the best deal going for hybrids, maybe one of the best for all cameras. The GH3 is certainly better in a one to one comparison, but the GH2 at current prices is just a steal.
Click to expand...

Had some upside for video for sure, but not even in the same league as a stills camera and not FF for those that want that.
 
One thing to remember which I forgot is No 60fps on 5d Mark II. It could be a deal breaker as I know many people use it for slow motion. I really want to like the Canon 6d, but it's like Canon is purposely holding it back....For $2k they should not be doing that as it could have really been a game changer.
 
J.F.R. said:
One thing to remember which I forgot is No 60fps on 5d Mark II. It could be a deal breaker as I know many people use it for slow motion. I really want to like the Canon 6d, but it's like Canon is purposely holding it back....For $2k they should not be doing that as it could have really been a game changer.
Click to expand...

You would think the processor could have handled 60 fps, not sure why it was left out. We do have to remember this is an entry level camera. It's designed and priced as an entry level FF camera for still photographers.
 
J.F.R. said:
One thing to remember which I forgot is No 60fps on 5d Mark II. It could be a deal breaker as I know many people use it for slow motion. I really want to like the Canon 6d, but it's like Canon is purposely holding it back....For $2k they should not be doing that as it could have really been a game changer.
Click to expand...

I agree they should have included 60p and since it's not weather sealed a flip out screen. I don't think either of those features would have effected sales of the MK3 or their high end video gear, and would dramatically up sales, but as the camera is now, I think it will tank sooner than later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top