# 5D Mk II or Mk III?



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

I'll keep this post short and sweet. I'm looking for whether or not to make the upgrade/investment to a 5D Mk III, or just go with a Mk II for now, based on these facts:

Goal: Begin to use photography as a second source of income through small business.

Camera Body's primary uses (in this order):
1. Event Photography (weddings, senior/engagement photos, sporting events, freelance newspaper work, etc.)
2. Other portraiture (w/out studio for now, small studio eventually)
3. Lanscape/cityscape
4. Travel/Sightseeing

Any guidance is welcome, especially if you have experience or have used both bodies. Budget, of course, is an issue, but I can manage the additional $ for the Mk III if I feel I really need to.

Thanks!

(Current equipment listed below)


----------



## jaomul (Jun 18, 2012)

5d iii because you mentioned sports events


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 18, 2012)

Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income. 

Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.


----------



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income.
> 
> Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.



Yup... the freelancing stuff for those weekends I may be bored and there's some stuff going on around town worth shooting. re: your suggestion...Why do you suggest investing in the MkII w/ the 50 1.2 over the MkIII.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 18, 2012)

I suggest the 5D2 and the 50L because aside from the 200mm, your lenses suck.


----------



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I suggest the 5D2 and the 50L because aside from the 200mm, your lenses suck.



in that case, wouldn't looking at a 70-200mm f2.8 or f4 be a better thought, in terms of versatility?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 18, 2012)

I dunno...LOL this is where experience comes into play.

Sorry if i'm being a bit elitist or sarcastic, but it really depends on how you want your pictures to look. sure a 24-70, and 70-200 are flexible options that can shoot just about anything...but it seems like everyone and their grandmother with a FF DSLR has one and as a result, they're BORING AS HELL. So I say save money on the body and get some exotic lens that most people don't shoot with.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:
			
		

> I dunno...LOL this is where experience comes into play.
> 
> Sorry if i'm being a bit elitist or sarcastic, but it really depends on how you want your pictures to look. sure a 24-70, and 70-200 are flexible options that can shoot just about anything...but it seems like everyone and their grandmother with a FF DSLR has one and as a result, they're BORING AS HELL. So I say save money on the body and get some exotic lens that most people don't shoot with.



In that case what about an M9 and Noctilux 50mm  f0.95


----------



## gsgary (Jun 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:
			
		

> I dunno...LOL this is where experience comes into play.
> 
> Sorry if i'm being a bit elitist or sarcastic, but it really depends on how you want your pictures to look. sure a 24-70, and 70-200 are flexible options that can shoot just about anything...but it seems like everyone and their grandmother with a FF DSLR has one and as a result, they're BORING AS HELL. So I say save money on the body and get some exotic lens that most people don't shoot with.



I'm a bit shocked you didn't say shoot film


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Freelance newspaper? ELL OH ELL if you think that's going to bring in income.
> 
> Seriously though, get the old one and a killer lens like a 50 1.2.



OR get a Sigma 50 1.4 for even cheaper which some Canon users have said is very comparable to the 50 1.2 L lens.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

Thanks for the tips, everyone. I think at this point, it would make more sense to go with a used Mk II and spend that money I'll be saving on some higher quality glass.


----------



## morganza (Jun 19, 2012)

jaomul said:


> 5d iii because you mentioned sports events



Yeah, I agree.


----------



## daarksun (Jun 27, 2012)

If you can afford the upgrade get the 5DIII.  It's like the full frame 7D and great for everything.  Plenty of room to grow.  You'r lenses can always be sold off and changed as your needs change, but the body you keep a long time (for most of us).


----------



## TheBiles (Jun 28, 2012)

You'll really appreciate the Mark III's autofocus if you shoot anything that moves. Look into a 24-70 or 24-105, which are great walk-around lenses. Personally, I would not suggest the 50 1.2, which has laughable sharpness below f/2.8 and is a total rip-off for the money. The 85 1.2 is much better. Get the 50 1.4 if you want a 50.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 28, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> You'll really appreciate the Mark III's autofocus if you shoot anything that moves. Look into a 24-70 or 24-105, which are great walk-around lenses. Personally, I would not suggest the 50 1.2, which has laughable sharpness below f/2.8 and is a total rip-off for the money. The 85 1.2 is much better. Get the 50 1.4 if you want a 50.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus



I don't mean to derail the conversation but does the 5DIII have an AF that is comparable to the 1D Mark IV and older 1D cameras?


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 28, 2012)

AF in my 5d3 runs circles around my friends 1d IV, but of course, he just says he got a bad copy.


----------



## rballard1076 (Jun 28, 2012)

I own a mk ii and have played around with a mk iii.  I enjoy my Mkii don't get me wrong, but if you had the budget to get a Mkiii I would bite the bullet.  The autofocus is much better.  My Mkii can be very frustrating to get sharp images with, and this is shooting with nice sharp primes.


----------



## TheBiles (Jun 28, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > You'll really appreciate the Mark III's autofocus if you shoot anything that moves. Look into a 24-70 or 24-105, which are great walk-around lenses. Personally, I would not suggest the 50 1.2, which has laughable sharpness below f/2.8 and is a total rip-off for the money. The 85 1.2 is much better. Get the 50 1.4 if you want a 50.
> ...


 
It has the same AF as the 1DX (minus its 100,000 pixel metering). 

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201


----------



## LShooter (Jun 29, 2012)

I never owned a 5D Mk II, but I did own a 7D for a long time.  I shot the Mk II on many occassions when I got to use those that belonged to friends.  I loved the IQ but never liked the AF system.  The 7D just spoiled me.  About a month ago I sold my 7D and upgraded to the Mk III and could not be happier!!! It is an amazing camera and I have no regrets.  The price is probably a few hundred more than it needs to be, but it is a great camera which should last many many years and I think it has enough extra features that the Mk II doesn't has that it will give you greater overall peformance and more real world options down the road.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 29, 2012)

LShooter said:


> The price is probably *five hundred* more than it needs to be, but it is a great camera which should last many many years and I think it has enough extra features that the Mk II doesn't has that it will give you greater overall peformance and more real world options down the road.



fixed typo for you


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 25, 2012)

rballard1076 said:


> ...if you had the budget to get a Mkiii I would bite the bullet.  The autofocus is much better.  My Mkii can be very frustrating to get sharp images with, and this is shooting with nice sharp primes.



I'm making the same decision now...  between the 2 and 3.

Most of my work is from a tripod and with manual focus.

What are other considerations between the two cameras?

Thanks.

-Pete


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 25, 2012)

The mkIII has duel memory card slots, which is a big deal for some photographers as it offers instant redundancy for your image files.  
The mkIII has a slightly bigger (maybe better) LCD screen.
The mkIII uses a newer processor (Digic 5)...I think it may have two of them (one for the AF etc.)
The mkIII allows for up to 5 stops of EC, mkII is typical with only two.  

It's a really tough choice IMO.  The mkIII is obviously a superior camera...but it's also A LOT more expensive.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...cts=canon_eos5dmkiii&products=canon_eos5dmkii


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 25, 2012)

Thanks, Mike.  Good info.  Thanks for the link too.

I'm left with the same feelings as you.  Damn.


I'll be sure to let you know what I do.

Thanks again.
-Pete


----------



## Jiffer (Jul 26, 2012)

Canon 5dm3 can record 29.59 nonstop so for you guys who have long long run times this camera is great


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 26, 2012)

If you know what you are doing, you can even compete on the market with an mk I 

... but it will be tougher with some limitations. The mk II is well useable with sports .. but a bit trickier to get the focus right, that is true.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 6, 2012)

I think as many people have summarized it multiple times already, the choice really depends on what you're shooting.  

For sports you'll be kidding yourself if trying to shoot fast action with 5d2.

For landscapes, and studio work 5D2 is just fine.

For weddings and events..I'd say 5d2 will do fine as well.

So unless you shoot fast moving objects a lot, 5D 3 isn't worth the price premium.


----------



## DScience (Aug 6, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I dunno...LOL this is where experience comes into play.
> 
> Sorry if i'm being a bit elitist or sarcastic, but it really depends on how you want your pictures to look. sure a 24-70, and 70-200 are flexible options that can shoot just about anything...but it seems like everyone and their grandmother with a FF DSLR has one and as a result, they're BORING AS HELL. So I say save money on the body and get some exotic lens that most people don't shoot with.



Although some are trying to mock Sw1tchFX, this is the best advice. The question isn't "who shoot's with zoom's" it's who shoots with more exotic lenses. This is where you can get 'artistic' and personalized photos.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 6, 2012)

morganza said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > 5d iii because you mentioned sports events
> ...


I have shot some sporting events with the 5d2 and frankly, it sucks. Slow FPS, crappy focus with only one cross type focus point. 
I am NOT in love with my 5d2. Anything low light or moving? I hate it. I default to my 7D more often than my 5d2. 
I'd actually say your choices would be either the 5d3 or the 7D according to what you want to shoot. 
My thoughts: If you start with the 7D now you can shoot everything you want to shoot with it. You WILL need a second body as a back up down the line when working professionally. The price will eventually drop down a bit on the 5d3. Give it a year. Then pick that up as your primary and the 7D as your secondary.

Your most important investment will be your lenses. I won't tell you what lenses YOU need because it all depends on the style of the shooter. 
I can tell you what I would do: As a sports shooter I cannot live without my 70-200 f/2.8 OS, Sigma. I also use it for most portraits and for weddings. 
I am a zoom kind of shooter, so my next necessary lens would be the 24-70 f/2.8L or a similar lens like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. 
For portraits I LOVE my 28mm. I would shoot with all primes for portraiture if I had them. I have a 50mm and I am desperately wanting the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.4 for portraits. They'll be on this year's list for upgrades. Primes are the sharpest of sharp lenses. L glass primes are beyond my upgrade budget at this point, but they are the best of the best glass. 
What you choose to shoot with is almost as personal as what kind of underwear you wear. It has to fit YOU and YOUR needs, style and comfort zone.


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 8, 2012)

I'd say hold on to the 5DII you have and upgrade to faster glass and perhaps a bigger flash.  If you're doing event photography, you definitely need faster glass.  And for indoor weddings and such, more light(s).  

Just my $0.02 worth...


----------



## LShooter (Aug 13, 2012)

Love my Mk III!!!!!


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 13, 2012)

GreggS said:


> I'll keep this post short and sweet. I'm looking for whether or not to make the upgrade/investment to a 5D Mk III, or just go with a Mk II for now, based on these facts:
> 
> Goal: Begin to use photography as a second source of income through small business.
> 
> ...



Assuming the same glass on 5d2 or 5d3, if you can afford 5d3, this shouldn't even be a question.

5d3 and never look back.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2012)

5D-II or *5D-III*????

Volkswagon Beetle or *Porsche Turbo Carrera*?

Bud Light or *Stella Artois*?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> 5D-II or *5D-III*????
> 
> Volkswagon Beetle or *Porsche Turbo Carrera*?
> 
> Bud Light or *Stella Artois*?



^^^^^^^there it is


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Aug 14, 2012)

I don't know why you asked anyone on here. You need to ask the wife, " honey can I spend 1600$ or 3500$"? Then she will laugh and it's back to the iPhone - oh that's my wife sorry. 

Anyways the mIII is a great camera. If you already have good glass then get the mIII, if you have the $. If you don't have glass then the mII is a very good choice as well and you will have $ for glass. 

Use my line, " honey it's a tax deduction."


----------



## BXPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> OR get a Sigma 50 1.4 for even cheaper which some Canon users have said is very comparable to the 50 1.2 L lens.



For a working professional the Sigma 50mm is not a reliable enough option. Even after calibration focus is hit or miss and even worse in low light conditions. For the working pro, the most upto date gear he can afford is the way to go. Keyword is afford... Me I can't afford to miss shots or worry about focus issues during events. So I've always bought the best...


----------



## johndizzo (Aug 21, 2012)

The focusing system on the mkiii is a world of difference from the mkii. As far as IQ goes, I'd say there is not a significant difference at least from my personal experience with both. Dynamic range and resolution are very close. You only realistically get about one extra stop with the mkiii and not what Canon actually claims. If you are content with the IQ of the mkii and have no issues working with it's focusing, then I would agree with what many others have posted and say that you should invest in better glass as what you have listed in your gear list could use some improvement (especially for what you want to do). 

I see that many replies have made mention of the Canon 50mm 1.2. I would have to disagree with that assessment based on your list of current lenses. To replace the 17-40 focal length, I would go with the 35L prime. Amazingly sharp and is a compromise of that general zone of focal lengths. Only issue is that it is not weather sealed. Otherwise, I feel like I get a lot more use and consistent focusing (more keepers) with the 35 since it has a floating element whereas the 50 1.2 does not. If you are intent on sticking with a 50mm, the sigma is excellent as well as the Canon 1.4 for their respective prices. If you are decent at manual focusing, I would look into the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar as it is a good normal FOV lens along with a 1:2 Macro which will come in handy for shooting details at weddings. Personally, it is my favorite lens in my stable just based on IQ/look of the images and it's overall versatility as a prime. For me, no other macro capable lens out there comes close to it for having uses for many other types of shooting.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 21, 2012)

Canon is starting to lag behind on DR.  If they had a camera out with significantly more DR and 40mpix, I'd jump on that boat asap.


----------



## EOSfotografie (Aug 27, 2012)

I like both cameras. Use them both quit often. And I would lie that "I really like the 5D III" ;-)


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 2, 2012)

I decided on the Mark II.  It came today.


----------



## MonochromeB (Oct 2, 2012)

Remember that if you put the Power switch up to the main switch position, and spin the selector with either your hand or nose while not purposely changing a setting, you will manually select a different focus point! HOPE YOU LIKE YOUR MII. I LOVE MINE.


----------

