Is the 5D mark 2 dead?

[Ruben/Sheri]

So I have been contemplating getting a 5D mark 2 for music video's, short films etc.. or FS100. I love the filmick colors and look of the 5D mark 2 but am concerned that no one wants that tec for there video's anymore... is the 5d mark 2 really a thing of the past for video and move on to a FS 100?

 

[squig]

If you have the money for an FS100 why would buy a MKII instead of a MKIII? I have a MKII and I bought a MKIII after a long hard look at the FS100.

 

[Ruben/Sheri]

because of negative posts of the video post sharpening etc and all-i/ ipb codec.. that I have heard.

If you have the money for an FS100 why would buy a MKII instead of a MKIII? I have a MKII and I bought a MKIII after a long hard look at the FS100.

 

[Green Hornet]

I recently bought a MARK II, and sold my 7D. The 7D is in many ways a better camera. I bought the 5D for it's ability to adjust sound level, and disable AGC.
That was enough.

For the price point, it is the best all around camera FOR ME. I do stills as well as video, and also have a HMC150 for long running things.
I can't think of any other choice in the price range these cameras are in.

I feel I would have to spend double before I would appreciate the difference if any.

TO ME, the only thing that will make this camera better, is better control over sound.
The image TO ME, is good enough where no one (except the camera owner), would care about the differences.

 

[squig]

because of negative posts of the video post sharpening etc and all-i/ ipb codec.. that I have heard.

If you're not doing some post with any digital camera you're not getting anywhere near the best out of it. The post sharpening is not a negative issue at all, just don't overdo it. The All-I codec is the best option for high detail, fast motion, and native editing. I think you'll find IPB is just as good as the AVCHD codec on the FS100. The MKIII is a huge improvement on every other DSLR, a hacked GH2 has more resolution but resolution isn't everything. Hire one for a weekend and see for yourself.

 

[bill totolo]

In the last 2 weeks I have been booked, and shot for: Sci-Fi Network, HGTV, and PBS, all on the 5D MKII.

I sold my MKII in December '11 but held on to my shoulder rig, viewfinder and accessories.
Still getting a full day rate out of this setup.

 

[Chris Santucci]

The MKII is a better camera in my opinion if you don't need low light sensitivity or the audio features they added to the MKIII. And post sharpening can be an issue if you get paid to shoot and hand off the footage to a client who doesn't apply the post sharpening. The MKIII is soft and has some ugly noise below 40 IRE.

I'd say for the difference in price, add the VAF to a MKII and you'll be way ahead of what you get out of the MKIII.

 

[morgan_moore]

A side note - does the Mk3 have A/V out?

(Id like to get rid of my mk2 - only because I would prefer a nikon which would take better stills with my nikon glass)

But im realising that the a/v out on the 5d is very handy as I do a lot of remote monitoring*, cranes may not have hdmi, my steadicam does not have hdmi etc..

I have an FS100 too - which I consider to be a far more capable camera but (this w/e for example) Im shooting a gig on a 5d2 belonging to the client even though Ive offered them the FS100 at no cost

I guess that the client - or their boss - or their bosses bosses wife - has heard the 5d looks cool and requested that camera - seems like good news (like the FS100) travels slowly up the production tree..

S

* I mainly choose the 5d over my FS100 where the camera needs to be put in a tight space.. that generally needs a remote monitor

 

[nigelbb]

The MKII is a better camera in my opinion if you don't need low light sensitivity or the audio features they added to the MKIII. And post sharpening can be an issue if you get paid to shoot and hand off the footage to a client who doesn't apply the post sharpening. The MKIII is soft and has some ugly noise below 40 IRE.

I'd say for the difference in price, add the VAF to a MKII and you'll be way ahead of what you get out of the MKIII.

I'd say you are wrong but then I own a 5D2 & a 5D3 so have practical experience of using both rather than just pontificating on information that I have read on the Internet. I have no idea how anyone could say that the 5D2 better than the 5D3. The 5D3 is never worse than the 5D2. The video straight out of the camera is no softer than he 5D2 except it can be sharpened in post whereas with the 5D2 breaks down as it is so prone to moire & aliasing. There are many nice improvements like the larger, brighter higher resolution screen so that the 5D3 is altogether nicer to shoot with.

 

[nigelbb]

A side note - does the Mk3 have A/V out?

It has the same A/V out as the 5D2 & has better HDMI out for monitoring (doesn't drop down to SD when you hit record).

 

[yoclay]

I'd say you are wrong but then I own a 5D2 & a 5D3 so have practical experience of using both rather than just pontificating on information that I have read on the Internet. I have no idea how anyone could say that the 5D2 better than the 5D3. The 5D3 is never worse than the 5D2. The video straight out of the camera is no softer than he 5D2 except it can be sharpened in post whereas with the 5D2 breaks down as it is so prone to moire & aliasing. There are many nice improvements like the larger, brighter higher resolution screen so that the 5D3 is altogether nicer to shoot with.

Chris actually owned a 5D Mark III, when it came out, but sold it because of the issues which he described. So he is not pontificating, he is speaking from hands-on experience. The only caveat to that is that since then we have found that IPB is better for most things because the noise is an ALL-I bug which Canon has yet to address. The post sharpening solution was also found after Chris had more or less thrown in the towel as well.

 

[morgan_moore]

It has the same A/V out as the 5D2 & has better HDMI out for monitoring (doesn't drop down to SD when you hit record).

Good to know.. that plus the Okki gives the 5d2 AND 3 a significant up over Nikon if remote operation/monitoring comes onto your radar

S

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Philip Bloom's New Zealand video sold me on the 5D3. And on New Zealand.

 

[Chris Santucci]

I'd say you are wrong but then I own a 5D2 & a 5D3 so have practical experience of using both rather than just pontificating on information that I have read on the Internet. I have no idea how anyone could say that the 5D2 better than the 5D3. The 5D3 is never worse than the 5D2. The video straight out of the camera is no softer than he 5D2 except it can be sharpened in post whereas with the 5D2 breaks down as it is so prone to moire & aliasing. There are many nice improvements like the larger, brighter higher resolution screen so that the 5D3 is altogether nicer to shoot with.

My opinion is my opinion and therefore isn't subject to your assessment as being "wrong." I've used the MKIII, so I'm not "pontificating," chief. I get paid to shoot and edit. That's all I do, so I'm not generally one to talk out of my arse.

And, the footage from the MKIII absolutely IS soft(er) compared to the MKII. Why was everyone going bug-nuts crazy over the removal of the OLPF?

 

[Gary Huff]

For full frame video, I think you're crazy to even consider the Mark II unless you simply cannot afford the Mark III.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Price would be the reason to get a MK2. Used MK2 can be found for $1800 easily, vs $3500 for a new MK3. I'd rather have an MK3 for sure, but the price to upgrade just isn't worth it to me at this point.

 

[Barry_Green]

Why was everyone going bug-nuts crazy over the removal of the OLPF?

That was all a red herring. Removing the OLPF didn't help anything, and caused more problems than it was worth.

 

[dustylense]

My opinion is my opinion and therefore isn't subject to your assessment as being "wrong." I've used the MKIII, so I'm not "pontificating," chief. I get paid to shoot and edit. That's all I do, so I'm not generally one to talk out of my arse.

And, the footage from the MKIII absolutely IS soft(er) compared to the MKII. Why was everyone going bug-nuts crazy over the removal of the OLPF?

As Barry stated, I will to add that the OPLF removal was a big fart. I shoot with a MK3, Af100, XF300 and 105. I have a hacked gh2, a Mk2. The Mk3 is what I'm grabbing first of all those cameras. Shooting at Iso's up to 6400 without concern. It's not as soft as you have "read" when you put decent glass on it and then sharpen it correctly. In terms of a camera that takes stills and has a video function, the MK3 destroys the Mk2 all day and way more at night, being the Mk3 is 2-3 stops better in high ISO. The Mk3 is a large improvement over the Mk2....

 

[justintkatz]

I would also suggest going with a 5dm3 if you have the budget. There a bunch of advantages for video that this system has over the 5d mark ii such as the digic 5 sensor. But i would not say that the 5d mark ii is dead. I still use it and I will say that it does the trick,especially for b or c cam.

 

[maarek]

My opinion is my opinion and therefore isn't subject to your assessment as being "wrong." I've used the MKIII, so I'm not "pontificating," chief. I get paid to shoot and edit. That's all I do, so I'm not generally one to talk out of my arse.

And, the footage from the MKIII absolutely IS soft(er) compared to the MKII. Why was everyone going bug-nuts crazy over the removal of the OLPF?

The funniest thing here is that the removal of the OLPF did NOTHING. NADA. It was all placebo. Kinda like in high end hifi, people claim all kinds of differences between equipment.

I bought the 5dmkIII and... I really like it. It's not any softer as such than the 5dmk2, but it does have less aliasing. It's harder to focus because the aliasing in my 7d helps nailing the focus.