# Canon 5D mkii or mkiii



## Vin Le Photography (Sep 27, 2015)

Hi All,

I've been looking to upgrade to full-frame, but I'm working on a budget here. I'm starting to work professionally as a photographer, but I'm having trouble 1) labeling myself as a professional when I'm shooting with a prosumer Rebel and 2) the AF limitations of the t4i. I can't always quite get the shot with it.

So, I'm looking to upgrade to either the mkii or mkiii. I've found some secondhand mkii's in the $900-$1000 range with reasonably <20,000 actuations. Would a brand new mkiii be worth $1400 more than the mkii in terms of autofocus and quality? I have enough cash saved up for the mkii, but would it be better to save a few more bucks for the mkiii?

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## EIngerson (Sep 27, 2015)

The MK III.


----------



## Rgollar (Sep 27, 2015)

MK III no doubt especially if you have any AF limitations.


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 27, 2015)

The mk II has 9 AF points -- just like the Rebel.  The mk III has 61.  

In every other way the mk II will be a big improvement over the Rebel... just not the AF system.

The 6D gas an 11 point AF system but really isn't much better than the Rebel or the mk II.


----------



## soufiej (Sep 27, 2015)

Vin Le Photography said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I've been looking to upgrade to full-frame, but I'm working on a budget here. I'm starting to work professionally as a photographer, but I'm having trouble 1) labeling myself as a professional when I'm shooting with a prosumer Rebel and 2) the AF limitations of the t4i. I can't always quite get the shot with it.
> 
> ...





First, I'm a hobbyist when it comes to photography.  I have* ZERO* experience trying to convince anyone of anything, least of all they should hire me because I can throw money at equipment.  

I _have _spent several decades in high end consumer and pro audio and was often asked the question, "What do you own?"  My answer was almost always, "I own gear you can't buy today."  Which was largely true, I owned gear that pleased me and I wasn't required to please or to educate or to compete with anyone or anything else.  I based what I wanted to use on the results I achieved with that gear.

Therefore, I find your question to be a bit odd.  *Who are you trying to please? 
*
Yourself?

Your potential employers?

Or, your competitors?  



Oh, I get the idea you will be looked upon as a second class person (not just as a photographer but your entire being) if you aren't playing with the "approved" equipment.   But that's mostly by the other photographers.  

Not being in your position, I would take a wild guess and say no potential employer has ever looked at your portfolio and said, "Ya'know, this kid's good but damn! he could'a got that shot if he only had a better camera.  Tell him to come back when he's no longer wet behind the ears and has better gear."  

So before you go into debt to buy a camera that may not be that much better than what you already own, stop and consider just what it is you're selling.

Yourself?

Your results?

Or, your equipment bag(s).  




I generally defer to TC as he has far more experience and far more knowledge at hand than I do when it comes to photography.  He knows stuff I probably will never need to know.  

I will, however, provide a quote from a fairly controversial writer who posts this in their review of the budget, baseline Canon Rebel SL1 ...

_"Autofocus uses Canon's proven 9-point system. It focuses fast, and is fast and easy to set. I like it as much as the complicated systems that don't do any more on my more expensive Canons.

While more expensive cameras try to fool the innocent with a zillion more AF points, the reality is that the 9 AF areas of the SL1 cover a larger percentage of the image than the zillions of sensors crammed into a smaller area of the more expensive cameras, and the 9 sensors of the SL1 always work, while often people with more exotic cameras get them set into some screwy mode where the camera refuses to take the picture.

Personally, the SL1'as AF is wonderful as far as I'm concerned, for regular pictures. (No DSLR has great AF for video.)"_; Canon SL1 Review

As I said, I'm a hobbyist but I would consider just how many more autofocus points you have ever wished were available to you up to now.  

Rockwell's been called "the one whose name shall not be mentioned" because, I suppose, he's not impressed by numbers on a piece of paper.   And do take note of his qualifier when he says "regular pictures".   I assume you do not want to take "regular pictures".  

If you need numbers on a piece of paper (or a monitor screen), then's here's a static side by side between your two choices; Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

Of course, "static" means you are looking at a product from afar.  You don't have it in your hands and you cannot subjectively judge the performance of either component.  

I play guitar and I use guitar and music as my base for many decisions regarding cameras and audio gear.  It's my own personal little troika where one works with the other two in any situation.  

I know I've gone into a shop with cash in hand to buy a certain guitar and after sitting for a few hours over a few days and simply playing the available choices, after playing as many possible choices as I could lay my hands on over the last year, I've walked out of the shop with a few hundred dollars still in my bank account.  Doesn't mean I don't come back to play that other guitar every now and again but I do so more to say I made the right choice even though I still admire the one I left behind.  

In that vein, I would ask, if you had the opportunity to hear, say, B.B. King a few years back, would you have walked out if he had come on stage carrying a $500 Fender?  

Who are you trying to please?


----------



## goodguy (Sep 27, 2015)

EIngerson said:


> The MK III.


+1 

5D III


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 27, 2015)

I'm more worried about lenses than camera bodies.  A good lens will do so much to help the creative look of a shot because you can control the sense of depth or of compression, you can control the depth of field, the degree and quality of the background blur.  This is more important than the body.  It's not that the body isn't important... full-frame cameras DO tend to do amazing in the high-ISO with low-noise department... I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at ISO 3200 or even 6400.   My old camera maxed out at ISO 3200 and the noise looked terrible... even 1600 wasn't great -- so I stayed away from anything above 800.

Wedding and portrait photography don't really need amazing focus systems... but for action photography the high-end focus systems really shine.


----------



## Vin Le Photography (Sep 28, 2015)

First of all, soufiej, I'd like to say thank you for your detailed feedback. It really helps put things into perspective. In addition, thanks TCampbell for the commentary on lenses vs. bodies.

Seems like I should probably stick with what I got and get some more lenses into my arsenal before I make the leap. On the other hand, I've found a 7D for $400 and 21k actuations. Would it be wise for me to invest $400 and the rest on high quality lenses then?



soufiej said:


> Not being in your position, I would take a wild guess and say no potential employer has ever looked at your portfolio and said, "Ya'know, this kid's good but damn! he could'a got that shot if he only had a better camera. Tell him to come back when he's no longer wet behind the ears and has better gear."



I'd also like to add to this quote. I've unfortunately been turned down from a high paying job (high for start-up at least) because my equipment wasn't good enough. My client was impressed by my portfolio, but I was turned down because I was using a Rebel series. This was one of the causes for me to be asking this question in the first place.

Anyways, looks like I'll be holding off on the 5D for now based on the detailed feedbacks. Thanks all!


----------



## soufiej (Sep 29, 2015)

Once again, coming from a position of never having asked anyone to hire me to shoot photos, I'm not all that surprised that someone would turn down a photographer due to their gear.  I am surprised they made it evident that was their reason.  

People do things you can't explain.  I've been involved in audio/video/acoustics on the consultation, design, sales, installation, instruction and operation side for decades and have come to learn, at times you simply walk away.  

The client tells you this and then they do that.  

There's not much reason as far as you can see but later you find out it was for a reason they concocted in their own thinking which justified what they did.  People almost always find ways to justify doing things that make no real sense.  Doesn't make sense when you think about what they said they wanted and no reasonable person would do it but they did.  

So you simply walk away and look to the next client.  What has passed has passed and there's no looking back.  You don't, and can't, change how you do your business based on one person's (illogical) decision.


Generally, these are people who don't have much experience in the field and they are distrustful of someone who is not blah blah blah'ing the stuff from the magazines.  You write if off and move on to assist those who have hired you to build a system they will enjoy and find useful.  

On occasion, it comes from someone with some knowledge and they often have some mysterious reason behind their decisions.  Maybe they never liked the brand you were selling but had read a good review of a component and gave it a consideration.  Still, they could not get over their long standing beliefs regarding that line for this or for that reason.    

Again, you simply head forward and don't look back.  

If the individual who turned you down did so out of a lack of knowledge and based their decision only on what they had seen others use, then you probably lost little.  Remember them and how they think and act if your paths ever cross again.  They may come to you in the future and ask for your help getting them out of the jam they've put themself in.  If you never see them again, there are another 320 million people in the US you have yet to meet.

If they actually had an assignment that would have been difficult to achieve without high end camera gear, then you simply say you lost that job but there are others and you go about making those future clients as happy as possible with your skills.   

If they had not made it obvious in their advertisement for the job that certain gear would be required, then you were certainly within reason to apply. 

You didn't get the job and, in life, there will probably be others you do or don't get for whatever reason.   

Everyone grows in their business.  When I first started in audio sales, I certainly didn't have the gear or the knowledge I acquired over the years.  If you're good at what you do, you will get those jobs and the gear will come.  

Like any sales person you are selling yourself and your product and you can't get hung up on not getting any one job for whatever reason.  You simply put on your big girl panties and move on.  Life is too short to worry about things you can't change.  Certainly too short to try to figure out why someone did something that seems to be inconsistent and incongruous.  

Focus on what's ahead of you, not what's behind.  

I'll leave it to others more familiar with the 7D to make comments on its value to you.  

Good luck.


----------



## Punisher911 (Oct 13, 2015)

$400 to be "taken seriously" as a photographer by a less than knowing potential client for the 7d purchase, I think is a wise investment.  Plus it gives you two cameras.  No need to switch lenses during a shoot and you have a backup if something breaks....  The end of the day, the photos you present to the client is all that matters...  and I'm sure they won't know which of the two cameras they were taken with...


----------



## that1guy (Oct 22, 2015)

I could be a professional photog with a rebel... actually A SL1... but I do own both MKii and MKiii.... but I could take photos just as good with my SL1 as I could with the FF cameras . I'll just have to adjust to the crop sensor


....wait I just noticed you own a 7D... that's almost as professional as it gets... why don't you just invest in Red ring lenses for that body?


----------



## Punisher911 (Oct 22, 2015)

and I agree that the camera doesn't make the photo.  It merely captures what you compose.  Proper technique with a T3i will get you better photos than poor framing/compositions with a mkiii.  The same goes for a person who runs out and buys a 6D with a nice lens that shoots in Auto mode with poor depth of field choices passing themselves off as a "for hire" photog.  Not good.  See it all too much around me.  

[QUOTE="
....wait I just noticed you own a 7D... that's almost as professional as it gets... why don't you just invest in Red ring lenses for that body?[/QUOTE]    pretty sure they bought that after the OP started this thread.


----------



## that1guy (Oct 22, 2015)

[QUOTE="
....wait I just noticed you own a 7D... that's almost as professional as it gets... why don't you just invest in Red ring lenses for that body?[/QUOTE]    pretty sure they bought that after the OP started this thread.[/QUOTE]

that's possible.

I noticed your lens selection, very nice!  you sould swap your walk around to you 24-105mm lens  (it's my walk around and 2nd fav) you should try canons 70-200mm F4L non Is(I'm sure the Is has better glass but more expensive) it has some of the best image quality I have ever seen.


----------



## Punisher911 (Oct 22, 2015)

Sorry, forgot to change my "walkaround" description from the Sigma to my new L lens.. lol    Yeah, the 24-105L is the one that stays on my camera now....

Thanks on my lenses.  I have a few more I'd like to add.  (Don't we all)
What do you like about the 70-200 f/4L?  Is it worthwhile to save up more for the f/2.8 version?  I read the 70-200 f/2.8 ii is great for portraits, but it's a tank and it's costly.
(Sorry for the hi-jak)


----------

