Should i buy Canon 5d Mark ii today or another camera?

D

deleuze3

Well-known member
Hi,
A while ago, i tested a canon 5d mark ii, i really thought it was incredible for photo and video.

Is there any other alternative these days ? Mirrorless cameras?
I thought of buying a canon mark iii but its a bit expensive for me. What about GH3 or others ?

Thanks in advance,
Julien
 
If you're leaning towards a 5dii, I'd consider a 6D. Similar image, but better high ISO performance, and you also get 720/60p.
 
Unless you want to shoot RAW, I woudn't consider a 5D2 as of today. Many better options around.
 
a7S if you are DR-obsessed, NX1 (or GH4) if you are resolution-obsessed, D810 if you also care about stills and need AF, 5D3 or 6D if you want to stick to Canon
 
If you want stills and video in that price range then 5D II or 6D is your best bet. 6D if you are more video oriented 5D II if you are more stills oriented or want RAW video. I still shoot on my 5D II and results are stunning. It's not a low light monster but it holds its own. I wouldn't shoot mirrorless professionally for stills.
 
Here are some stills and video I just took with the 5D II:

http://www.eliecreative.com/rmh03152015/media/rebecca_michael_highlights.mp4

018.jpg


017.jpg


145.jpg


003.jpg


095.jpg
 
You can just sneak the meta data yourself :)

Image 1: EF135mm f/2L USM - 1/200 sec; f/4.5; ISO 500

Image 2: EF135mm f/2L USM - 1/200 sec; f/3.2; ISO 640

Image 3: EF135mm f/2L USM - 1/200 sec; f/2.8; ISO 640

Image 4: EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM - 1/200 sec; f/4.5; ISO 200

Image 5: EF135mm f/2L USM - 1/200 sec; f/6.3; ISO 400
 
I know everyone hates when I post this, but.... It's the Indian, not the arrow. The carpenter, not the hammer. The guitarist, not the guitar. Oh, you get the idea!

Julien, I have seen some of your work. Rather than spending money on another camera, spend it on training/learning/practice.

Use the cameras you have now, and work on perfecting your craft!

All the best!

Dave
 
Sorry I missed the earlier responses. The metadata is correct for the still images. Metadata doesn't show the auxilary lighting used which is mostly Einstein 640 strobes.

The video is mostly Tamron 24-70 2.8, Canon 70-200 IS f2.8 II, and Sigma 50mm 1.4 art.
 
drdimento said:
NOT the 5D Mark II . . BUT . . the 5D Mark III, eon's forward in quality and image . . enough said.
Click to expand...

Mark III is better is low light (only significant difference above 1250 ISO) and it produces less moire in specific situations. Aside from that the image quality is very very similar with the 5D II actually having a small edge when it comes to dynamic range.

You make the decision for yourself and what you shoot when deciding if it's worth the extra money.
 
The Canon 5D MKIII is the only Canon camera that enables 1080p RAW via ML. With ML RAW the 5D MKII has the best image quality of all Canon consumer cameras. However ML doesn't work with the latest MKIII firmware, which isn't down-gradable, so the only option is to get a used one with a previous firmware.

Another option is the 7D MKII, which falls behind 5D MKIII with ML RAW, but it isn't bad in itself and it isn't FF. The benefit of the 7D MKII is excellent AF (auto focus).

As for cameras by other brands, the color science of the Sony, Panasonic and Samsung consumer cameras isn't in the same league of the Canons.
 
egproductions said:
Mark III is better is low light (only significant difference above 1250 ISO) and it produces less moire in specific situations. Aside from that the image quality is very very similar with the 5D II actually having a small edge when it comes to dynamic range. You make the decision for yourself and what you shoot when deciding if it's worth the extra money.
Click to expand...

Having owned both the 5D2 and the 5D3, as a personal use as a professional and the output performance and correct-ability/grading of the images out of each, the 5D3 is just all around better overall and specifically. That is, while the technical data might suggest one is only "marginally" or "possibly" better, in real life performance if the camera out performs in 7 out of 10 applications, that makes it worth the extra mile of cost.

One thing I learned early in this business long before producing over 400 broadcast shows and over 1,000 videos was that there were technical specifications, tests, and performance data that say something but don't reveal the look and feel someone wants, a look and feel by the way that the general viewer public considers over technical specifications.

That said, when I look at the images coming out of the 5D2 or the 6D which were nice just not awesome and then compare them to the images coming out of the 5D3 for the same similar working circumstances, the 5D3 requires LESS input from the operator with regard to settings and adjustments, allowing the operator to spend more time on composition and framing or even focus on steading or outside conditions that aren't related to the picture at all, like, "am I too close to the edge of the building roof?" (fear of heights) :-)

It always comes down to a matter of choice, but all in all, I always say don't look at a camera's technical specs, instead ask yourself what will my buyer think of the look and feel of the images I deliver, after all they are really the end user of the camera and its' operator. Therein, the 5D3 is an awesome experience. :-)
 
I'm sorry drdimento but I have to disagree. I've used and graded the 5D III plenty of footage over the years, I'm talking close to a thousand hours of footage. I'm not talking about ML RAW, I'm talking h.264 straight out of the cameras (which is how that sample wedding highlights was shot). The two things that are hard to compare between cameras from a spec sheet are color science and camera operation controls. Both of which are pretty much identical between the two cameras. I don't like pretending that there is something unexplainable about a camera that somehow makes it look better than others, as David mentioned, it's the Indian not the arrow, and the 5D III and II are very similar arrows.

One thing that is worth noting is that the 5D III has a significantly better LCD which does help with focus when not using an external monitor. (Both cameras are hard to focus without an extenal monitor) The difference in quality of the LCD also gives a false impression to operators that their footage is coming out so much better than the 5D II when in reality it really is similar. Also the High ISO capabilities of the 5D III come at the expense of a significant loss of dynamic range on a camera where the DR has much to be desired.

I've owned BMPCC's and I currently own a Sony FS7. There are still projects I do where the 5D II is more than enough camera for the purposes and I don't bother using the FS7, a camera that is truly in a different class terms of image quality.
 
Joshua_G said:
The Canon 5D MKIII is the only Canon camera that enables 1080p RAW via ML.
Click to expand...

While true, the problem is that the difference in resolution is overrated, RAW is overrated, workflow is a nightmare, and the cards needed put the camera into another price range where you have other much better options.

As a guy that also has a strong background in stills, I've been waiting for video cameras to shoot RAW for years. Now that it's here, I'm a bit dissapionted. The biggest issue is logistical workflow in regards to file sizes and NLE support. Currently, it significantly slows down the process of producing work with very little benefit when compared to a strong codec with a good log color science.
 
Joshua_G said:
The Canon 5D MKIII is the only Canon camera that enables 1080p RAW via ML. With ML RAW the 5D MKII has the best image quality of all Canon consumer cameras. However ML doesn't work with the latest MKIII firmware, which isn't down-gradable, so the only option is to get a used one with a previous firmware.

Another option is the 7D MKII, which falls behind 5D MKIII with ML RAW, but it isn't bad in itself and it isn't FF. The benefit of the 7D MKII is excellent AF (auto focus).

As for cameras by other brands, the color science of the Sony, Panasonic and Samsung consumer cameras isn't in the same league of the Canons.
Click to expand...


All 5D3s are down gradable, let's not go there again..
 
egproductions said:
I'm sorry drdimento but I have to disagree. I've used and graded the 5D III plenty of footage over the years, I'm talking close to a thousand hours of footage. I'm not talking about ML RAW, I'm talking h.264 straight out of the cameras (which is how that sample wedding highlights was shot). The two things that are hard to compare between cameras from a spec sheet are color science and camera operation controls. Both of which are pretty much identical between the two cameras. I don't like pretending that there is something unexplainable about a camera that somehow makes it look better than others, as David mentioned, it's the Indian not the arrow, and the 5D III and II are very similar arrows.

One thing that is worth noting is that the 5D III has a significantly better LCD which does help with focus when not using an external monitor. (Both cameras are hard to focus without an extenal monitor) The difference in quality of the LCD also gives a false impression to operators that their footage is coming out so much better than the 5D II when in reality it really is similar. Also the High ISO capabilities of the 5D III come at the expense of a significant loss of dynamic range on a camera where the DR has much to be desired.

I've owned BMPCC's and I currently own a Sony FS7. There are still projects I do where the 5D II is more than enough camera for the purposes and I don't bother using the FS7, a camera that is truly in a different class terms of image quality.
Click to expand...

To each ones' own.
Those who don't care about the color rendition may well choose a camera based on its' datasheet. In my book they are called 'technicians'.
There are some others (me included) who do care about the colors rendition more than any other aspect of the footage produced by the camera.
(However, I wouldn't use Black Magic BMPCC for all its' other faults, besides colors rendition and image quality, which are superb. So, colors rendition is the most important aspect to some people, but definitely not the only one).

That being said, no doubt the 5D MKII is more than enough for some projects. The question is which camera is the best choice nowadays. The answer lies on ones' needs, expectations and budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top