Wanting to get a new camera... can you help me figure it out?

J

jrm27

Active member
Hi all,

I'm a longtime canon user for photography. I've had an XSi, a t2i, and a 5Dmk1. Currently, I have the t2i and the 5dMk1 and use the t2i for all my video stuff. My lens "collection" is very limited... a 50mm 1.8, the stock 18-55, a 28-135, and 24-70L. I priamarily use the 24-70 and 50mm when doing video.

Running ML on the t2i, I find that it is a very capable camera, but I think it's time to upgrade. I'm noticing some hot pixels and would like to upgrade to something a little tougher. I absolutely love using the full frame 5D for my photography and would like to upgrade to a full frame camera for video. I'm attracted by the ability to shoot at higher ISO as well as the ability to coax a little more DOF range out of my current lenses when using a full frame camera. I work at a church and end up doing video for lots of different things... lately it has been interviewing, sometimes it is documenting an event, etc... A good amount of what I do is restricted to using available light, thus the attractive nature of higher ISO abilities. The cameras end up traveling a lot with me. They've been schlepped across many countries and continents and get used a good amount.

I will be using the camera for still photography as well. I love taking stills and so would be using the camera as often (if not more) for that purpose. My thought process is comparing the 5DmkIII, mkII, and the 6D. It seems that the mkIII gets better marks all around, but i know the mkII has made quite a name for itself (I've long drooled after one). I'm not sure about the 6D, it's specs look decent, but I really dont know how they translate to video. Buying a "body-only" mkIII will max my budget fully. Whereas, buying a Canon refurb mkII would probably leave some room for a budget lens or two. The 6D looks attractive, but I still don't know enough. I plan on keeping the t2i to use in a 2 camera setup. I'll probably sell the mkI to help fund the new purchase or enable the purchase of a lens, or some accessories.

Due to the nature of me wanting to use the camera for photography, I'd like to stay in the Canon family. For the same reason, I'm not looking into BMCC (it would be far beyond my abilities anyway, but a guy can dream!)

I know this is the million dollar question. However, might you have a recommendation for my type of shooting? Thanks!

-jon
 
I would say the Mk3. It's just a better built camera than the mk2 or 60d. It's a tank and weather sealed. 2 stop improvement of noise over the mk2. Price has just dropped on it as well. The Mk3 will last you some good years.
 
MK3 all the way. This is an interesting video. It will show that MK3 isn't as soft as people claim it to be. You will have to watch the whole video that is less then two minute long. At the end of the video they have some footage that the Mk2 would never be able to pull off.

http://vimeo.com/44008023
 
At the new price ($3K), the 5D3 is indeed a very interesting option. And your lens collection is much stronger for full frame than for APS-C. Add a 70-200 f/4L IS and you're golden.
 
I'd either go 5D3 or 6D - they have the same sensor as far as i know. I'd say the 5D3 is much better on the photo side, but not far from the 6D if you compare their video performance...

cheers
 
Thanks for the info and the links fellas. The 5Dmkiii is really really enticing and the samples i'm seeing are great (thanks for the video). Do you think the improvements in video that were made in the mkiii will be present in the 6D?
 
jrm27 said:
Do you think the improvements in video that were made in the mkiii will be present in the 6D?
Click to expand...

for sure, otherwise Canon would be quite out of business in this price range - other manufacturers deliver a more clean picture at the same if not lower price. So i definiteley think so...
 
hmmm... That's interesting. some of the 6D features are attractive to me. I know this sounds geeky, but being able to control it over wifi would be nice if it can be used with video. I usually never have someone to help me do videos, so setting up an interview shot without being able to see what the camera sees takes forever. Wireless monitoring could be cool. But, that's not a big enough reason to sway me one way or the other... it's kinda gimmicky. Why might one chose a mkiii over a 6D? My main concerns are image quality, durability, ability to shoot in higher ISO with less noise....

Thanks for the help so far everyone. It is much appreciated.

-jon
 
jrm27 said:
Whereas, buying a Canon refurb mkII would probably leave some room for a budget lens or two.
Click to expand...


"The biggest shocker: No noticeable improvement in raw image quality, even at high ISOs."

I'd say, if the MKIII has features you need, and you have the dough - get it. Otherwise, the footage the MKIII makes is softer compared to the MKII, the MKII has much simpler menus, and the MKII obviously is much less expensive. The only advantage I can see that the MKIII has over the MKII is the low light capability and potentially, the clean HDMI output.
 
Chris Santucci said:
"The biggest shocker: No noticeable improvement in raw image quality, even at high ISOs."

I'd say, if the MKIII has features you need, and you have the dough - get it. Otherwise, the footage the MKIII makes is softer compared to the MKII, the MKII has much simpler menus, and the MKII obviously is much less expensive. The only advantage I can see that the MKIII has over the MKII is the low light capability and potentially, the clean HDMI output.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the absence of moire & aliasing plus the fact that the 5D3 is a much better stills camera than the 5D2 which after all is what it is designed to be. In addition there are a whole bunch of other little features that any 5D2 owner will really appreciate e.g. customisable filenames, locking pin on mode change dial, nicer sharper higher resolution LCD screen, dual card slots both Compact Flash & SD etc While these might not seem such a big deal individually when you add them all up they make for a much nicer camera
 
nigelbb said:
Don't forget the absence of moire & aliasing plus the fact that the 5D3 is a much better stills camera than the 5D2 which after all is what it is designed to be. In addition there are a whole bunch of other little features that any 5D2 owner will really appreciate e.g. customisable filenames, locking pin on mode change dial, nicer sharper higher resolution LCD screen, dual card slots both Compact Flash & SD etc While these might not seem such a big deal individually when you add them all up they make for a much nicer camera
Click to expand...


The aliasing actually never really affected me and it was the primary reason I was late to the 5D party. After I got the MKII, I was kind of shocked by how little the aliasing showed up after hearing everyone whine about it for months. I really don't understand the addition of a 2nd slot for a different media card. That, to me is really odd.

To me, the biggest tradeoff between the two is *softer footage with less aliasing* Vs. *sharper footage with potentially more aliasing*.

The aliasing only becomes evident under certain conditions with the MKII. Since it's not guaranteed to rear its ugly head, I'd rather have the option of having sharper footage in-camera that I can control perfectly with the VAF-5D2 filter.

As for the stills, did you see that article I provided the linkie for?
 
The 5D3 is not softer than the 5D2. I shoot them side by side & while aliasing is not a problem moire certainly is. I just put up with it as my clients probably don't notice or care but I see it on brickwork, tiles, fences etc

Two card slots gives a choice for one thing & allows you to use SD cards that are half the price & if they are SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC are faster at 95MBps versus 90MBps for SanDisk Extreme Pro Compact Flash.

As for stills. I also shoot stills professionally & talking to other photographers who have moved from 5D2 to 5D3 we are all loving it. The images from the 5D2 are great & it wouldn't matter even if the 5D3 were no better image-wise as the ergonomics & performance are so much better. Instead of the previous hit & miss AF it now gets the shot every time. The noise free high ISO is good for another couple of stops. The burst mode performance has doubled. I shoot to both cards at once for insurance against card failure. The list goes on. I ordered a 1DX when they were announced but cancelled my order when Canon delivered most of the features I needed in the 5D3 long before they ever shipped the 1DX.
 
nigelbb said:
The 5D3 is not softer than the 5D2.
Click to expand...



Then why does it look softer? Why was everyone falling all over themselves to remove the OLPF a while back? Why are there SO many online discussions about post sharpening of MKIII footage? How did Canon manage to control the aliasing, if not by making the image softer, which it is?
 
Chris Santucci said:
Then why does it look softer? Why was everyone falling all over themselves to remove the OLPF a while back? Why are there SO many online discussions about post sharpening of MKIII footage? How did Canon manage to control the aliasing, if not by making the image softer, which it is?
Click to expand...
To see if they could do it that's why. Look. As a stills camera the MK3 it A FAR SUPERIOR CAMERA! It's what it is. It's a stills camera first. For video, it is a far superior camera as well. Headphone jack, I-frame recording. YES DUAL card SLOTS (WHY you don't get why or how to use dual card slots is beyond me). Better LCD. Audio monitoring. 2 stops better Iso performance. Way better build and weather sealing. Better layout of controls. Come april, 422 out. What else do you need. It's not sharp. To me, it's far sharper when you apply a simple sharpening to the video file and without moire and way reduced aliasing. I put my Leica R glass on it and I see wonderful images. You can finally shoot wide angle images with deep DOF. Your VAF has issues with that. You can't use certain wide angle lenses with the VAF.
But you said before, you could care less. But yet you keep trying to prove that the Mk2 is better. When it's so far from...
 
I am in the same situation by shooting stills and video. I purchased the 5DMKII purely as a stills camera which it excels at. I have been staying away from the MKIII as I was not impressed with the videos I had seen. The gamma seems brighter than the MKII but the percieved image detail seemed unchanged. Until I watched this on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/40117480 The shooter says in the comments that he did not add any sharpening to this video. I think it has a lot of detail, enough to change my perception of what the 5DMKIII is capable of. So I placed an order today from B&H for $2995.

This video is quite stunning as well. http://vimeo.com/50589835 If you had told me this was shot on a Varicam I would not have questioned it.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
I am in the same situation by shooting stills and video. I purchased the 5DMKII purely as a stills camera which it excels at. I have been staying away from the MKIII as I was not impressed with the videos I had seen. The gamma seems brighter than the MKII but the percieved image detail seemed unchanged. Until I watched this on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/40117480 The shooter says in the comments that he did not add any sharpening to this video. I think it has a lot of detail, enough to change my perception of what the 5DMKIII is capable of. So I placed an order today from B&H for $2995.

This video is quite stunning as well. http://vimeo.com/50589835 If you had told me this was shot on a Varicam I would not have questioned it.
Click to expand...

Those are fine examples of the Mk3. To the OP's concern here is the fact that he has some Canon glass. But he's not the the point of no return. 24-70 is a fine lens and the 50mm works. So he's in a position to buy into any system he wants. I have plus $10,000 in Canon glass. I don't feel stuck, but I have investment in the glass. Not so easy to jump to Nikon or Sony.

The Mk3 is dropping in price so that is good. And I say its a very fine camera. You can get a good used Mk2 for a pretty sweet deal, and it too is a very fine camera. I use both of them on all my stills shoots and many video projects. But when I hold the Mk3 and see it's performance, it's the build quality that separates the cameras. Image is just he icing on the cake. How can one not think of the Mk3 as an upgrade.

To the OP, take your time and look around. There are too many GREAT cameras out there to rush to your decision. If you want to stick to Canon and keep one of your bodies and your L glass, the Mk3 will make you happy, as would the Mk2. Maybe see what the 6D has to offer? Or even the coming 7DMk2.

I will add this though. I shoot lot's of corporate interviews as part of a multi media package I offer to still clients. So I can't control wardrobes. With the 5Dmk2, a subject would sit down and I would see shirt or item that I knew will be a disaster on the Mk2 all the time. Or the uncomfortable gesture of asking your sitter to remove their jacket so the camera could work. I have not run into that situation shooting interviews with the Mk3 once. I've seen minor shimmers of aliasing with the Mk3 but those same artifacts on the Mk2 would have just made the footage really hard to use. So I shoot these with the piece of mind knowing this. How that is not an upgrade again?
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
To see if they could do it that's why. Look. As a stills camera the MK3 it A FAR SUPERIOR CAMERA! It's what it is. It's a stills camera first.
Click to expand...

To see if they could make it softer? What? I'm well aware that it's a stills camera. You don't need to keep saying it. There are a LOT of photographers who claim the stills quality is NOT better with the MKIII. Many have not bothered with the MKIII.


dustylense said:
For video, it is a far superior camera as well. Headphone jack, I-frame recording. YES DUAL card SLOTS (WHY you don't get why or how to use dual card slots is beyond me). Better LCD. Audio monitoring. 2 stops better Iso performance. Way better build and weather sealing. Better layout of controls. Come april, 422 out. What else do you need.
Click to expand...

"FAR SUPERIOR CAMERA!" As far as image quality goes, that's just not true. Headphone jack? Who cares? Anyone doing serious work would be employing double system sound recording anyway. I-frame recording? Does it actually work now? "Better" LCD? Uhhh, ok. I hated the change they made to the controls, by the way. "Way better build?" Since when? And I wasn't aware that the MKII needed better weather sealing in the first place.

Many people were let down by the MKIII, myself included. After ALL the wait, it was a truly underwhelming upgrade with some head scratching changes included. The addition of an SD card slot being one of them (why SD and not CF?), the odd placement of the magnify button being another. And I find it amusing that people where crapping themselves over the OLPF removal until they realized it didn't really affect the soft footage.

I really don't need to prove anything, but when I see (mostly anonymous posters) posting BS about the MKIII being "far superior," after I chuckle a little, if I'm bored enough, I'll throw my 2 cents into the mix.
 
Chris Santucci said:
To see if they could make it softer? What? I'm well aware that it's a stills camera. You don't need to keep saying it. There are a LOT of photographers who claim the stills quality is NOT better with the MKIII. Many have not bothered with the MKIII.




"FAR SUPERIOR CAMERA!" As far as image quality goes, that's just not true. Headphone jack? Who cares? Anyone doing serious work would be employing double system sound recording anyway. I-frame recording? Does it actually work now? "Better" LCD? Uhhh, ok. I hated the change they made to the controls, by the way. "Way better build?" Since when? And I wasn't aware that the MKII needed better weather sealing in the first place.

Many people were let down by the MKIII, myself included. After ALL the wait, it was a truly underwhelming upgrade with some head scratching changes included. The addition of an SD card slot being one of them (why SD and not CF?), the odd placement of the magnify button being another. And I find it amusing that people where crapping themselves over the OLPF removal until they realized it didn't really affect the soft footage.

I really don't need to prove anything, but when I see (mostly anonymous posters) posting BS about the MKIII being "far superior," after I chuckle a little, if I'm bored enough, I'll throw my 2 cents into the mix.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly pitching us the idea that the mk2 is better than the mk3? I'm sorry, But the 3 beats the 2 in basically every aspect. Who cares if you need to sharpen in post? It looks far better than the 2 when you do. If you cannot accept having to spend a few more seconds putting it through post to sharpen, then that's just you. It doesn't mean the 2 is better
You keep saying you couldn't care less, if so, why are you commenting on nearly every 5dmk3 thread saying the 2 is better?

Yes, it was underwhelming, i admit, but you cannot honestly say it isn't better...

"Many have not bothered with the mkiii"
Really now? the mk3s are flying off the shelves in many local camera stores and I see lots of photogs (and videogs) around using the 3.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
This video is quite stunning as well. http://vimeo.com/50589835 If you had told me this was shot on a Varicam I would not have questioned it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link to that great video. I suspect that one reason that this looks so sharp is that it was shot in Namibia in bright sunshine & all the lenses were well stopped down & there is not attempt at arty-farty extreme shallow DoF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top