Canon EOS 5 MkII

christurbo

christurbo

Messages
274
Edit My Images
Yes
I initially wanted to purchase a Nikon D7000 or Canon EOS 7D. However after doing a lot of research the allure of full frame has pulled me in.

I have been looking at second hand or grey import Canon EOS 5D MkII bodies. It seem to have a lot of functionality and features built in along with amazing quality.

Would this be a good move for portraits, landscape, walkabout photography, with occasional movies?

I would love to stretch to the MkIII however my budget doesnt stretch that far.

Also I will need an EF lens to start me off. Is the 24-105 f/4.0 L lens a good starter lens?

Thanks,

Chris.:help:
 
love my 5d2, its great had it two years hasnt missed a beat
 
If I was going to buy a used full frame body it would be a D700. Everything the 5DII is but with streets better autofocus.
 
You've identified a very good combination. Some might favour a faster lens like the 24-70/2.8 though these are bigger and heavier. AF on the 5D is fine if you are not chasing sportspeople or kids, especially if you use the centre point.
 
iv never had a problem with the AF on 5d2 always done what i need her too
 
I purchased a 5d mk II secondhand earlier in the year. Already had a couple of ef lenses but added the 24-105 L. Does everything I ask of it, it's a great camera, and the 24-105 is now my walk about lens. Autofocus is a bit slow for motorsport but I have still managed to get some good images of that also.

Image quality is excellent.
 
The23rdman said:
If I was going to buy a used full frame body it would be a D700. Everything the 5DII is but with streets better autofocus.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the D700, how does it compare for video capture? Im not a videographer however it is nice to have those options.
 
No video in the D700. It's a camera. ;)
 
Boldonian said:
Indeed ...Why was the D700 ever mentioned in this thread?
Click to expand...

Because initially the OP was considering both Nikon and Canon, then when deciding full frame only started considering Canon.

I think the advice Dean has given is pretty sound and helpful, as I'm too looking at going full frame, currently shooting with Canon, but am torn between the 5DMKII and the D700, due to the D700'S superior auto focus, and ability to set minimum shutter speed when using auto iso - a feature I'd greatly benefit from, as may the OP.
 
theurbanclown said:
Because initially the OP was considering both Nikon and Canon, then when deciding full frame only started considering Canon.

I think the advice Dean has given is pretty sound and helpful, as I'm too looking at going full frame, currently shooting with Canon, but am torn between the 5DMKII and the D700, due to the D700'S superior auto focus, and ability to set minimum shutter speed when using auto iso - a feature I'd greatly benefit from, as may the OP.
Click to expand...

Apart from the OP's need for video, the D700 could be considered in this thread.
 
ive used a 5D extensively and can confirm its a stunning camera. The AF is not nearly as bad as some of these people make out. Just because it doesn't have 51 points you cant relegate it to crap territory. I use a D700 now and its certainly not a million miles away.

The only real big difference I felt I could have been doing with on the MK2 was setting a minimum shutter speed! The MK3 has this feature though
 
Last edited:
used to have a 40d for about 3 years but moved to the 5DMKII when it came out never looked back awsome for landscapes well even the majority of stuff.Sports is ok as long as you know what you are doing
the 24-105 is a good everyday lens I think that on the camers 95% of the time.I would love the 5D MKIII.but just out my reach at the mo as I bought a &D (grey) as a back up to my 5d
 
Boldonian said:
Apart from the OP's need for video, the D700 could be considered in this thread.
Click to expand...

I missed the line about video. The 5DII is a capable camera if you can live with it's flaws. Most people who say they've never had a problem with the AF do so because they've never used a camera with AF that works properly under tough conditions. I'm not a fanboy at all, just stating the facts as I see them and have no desire to turn the OP's thread into another boring Canikon debate.
 
The23rdman said:
I missed the line about video. The 5DII is a capable camera if you can live with it's flaws. Most people who say they've never had a problem with the AF do so because they've never used a camera with AF that works properly under tough conditions. I'm not a fanboy at all, just stating the facts as I see them and have no desire to turn the OP's thread into another boring Canikon debate.
Click to expand...

I have used both pretty extensively. its not amazing AF but its certainly not bad at all by any stretch. Its 20 odd megapixel remember, Im sure the D700 12mp equivalent on this camera would be even more forgiving in regards to AF
 
The23rdman said:
Most people who say they've never had a problem with the AF do so because they've never used a camera with AF that works properly under tough conditions.
Click to expand...

I think that is the critical bit - "tough conditions". Normal usage the 5D2 is fine, especially if you are happy to focus and recompose with the centre point. But it will suffer when shooting rapidly moving subjects especially if you want to use the of central focus points.

The high pixel count is unforgiving on poor technique but it does give you some leeway for cropping. With my fastest lenses shooting wide open I focus using the centre point then crop as recomposing/relying on the non-central points sometimes leads to poor focus. I switched to a 1Ds3 for the awesome AF which removed all risks of out of focus shots, but switched back within three months as the 5D2 was just so much more comfortable to use.
 
Last edited:
There are some really good points here.

I suppose the MKIII would tick all boxes. However it sounds like I would need to compromise for the budget I have.

Is the AF really that much of an issue with the MKII? This could be a problem as I do not want to rule out some sporting events as well as animals, etc.

There is a massive difference with AF points comparing the Nikon to the Canon

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II-vs-Nikon_D700
 
Last edited:
christurbo said:
Is the AF really that much of an issue with the MKII?
Click to expand...
No it's not. I have both cameras and still regularly use the MkII as it's a brilliant camera. Unless you are going for birds in flight with a supertelephoto, don't worry about the DIII. The DII with a 24-70 F2.8L and/or a 70-200 F2.8L is a very potent tool.

To put it in perspective, if I only had £2-3k to spend, I'd get a (used?) DII and some good glass.(y)
 
FourRingCircus said:
No it's not. I have both cameras and still regularly use the MkII as it's a brilliant camera. Unless you are going for birds in flight with a supertelephoto, don't worry about the DIII. The DII with a 24-70 F2.8L and/or a 70-200 F2.8L is a very potent tool.

To put it in perspective, if I only had £2-3k to spend, I'd get a (used?) DII and some good glass.(y)
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. In anything like poor light the only af point that works well enough to prevent hair pulling is the center one meaning massive cropping is needed. I used one for a while and found low light wide open prime shooting of children the most frustrating thing ever.
 
The23rdman said:
That's simply not true.
Click to expand...
Not true? Exactly what part of my statement is 'not true'?:nono:

The23rdman said:
In anything like poor light the only af point that works well enough to prevent hair pulling is the center one meaning massive cropping is needed. I used one for a while and found low light wide open prime shooting of children the most frustrating thing ever.
Click to expand...

That may well be the case, but neither myself (or the OP) has mentioned wide prime low light shooting of kids.

From the OP: "portraits, landscape, walkabout photography, with occasional movies"

Are you seriously telling me that the 5DII with decent glass is not eminently capable of this?:wacky: You must be confusing it with a Nikon......
 
You quoted Christurbo stating the af isn't an issue. I simply stated the situations where it is so the OP knows the limitations of the camera. Why there is any need to make it about Canon vs Nikon I don't know when I've already stated I have no allegiance. Yes, I use Nikon now, but I've had Canon gear for just as long.
 
i was shooting a friend's cat in almost no light a few days ago, AF was a bit hesitant, but still autofocused with a 50/1.8.

no, the AF isn't as good as other options, but it's neither as bad as most people makes out. Focus-recompose is far better than hoping the camera decides the right focus point. i've had both Nikon and Canons, none of them get it right all the time, whereas focus-recompose technique gets it right 100% of the time.

true Nikon have ability to limit shutter speed, useful for birds and motorsports. but Canon has ability to match minimal shutter speed to focal length, a far more useful feature for "walkabout photography".


5D2 ticks all the boxes and with 24-105mm, it's a monster setup. the 24-105mm is adequate at f4, at f5.6 and f8 it's pin sharp through out focal length. just add a cheap 50/1.8 for portraits.
 
Come on you two - you both have valid points!

23rdman is correct in saying that the 5DII is pretty much centre point only on low light; but by then it is pretty dark and way out of most peoples comfort zone. Ditto with fast moving subject, the 5DII is usable, but not the weapon of choice.

I'll support 4ringcircus in that the focus difference between the 5DII and 5DIII is not as great as most people think. I also have both bodies and most of the time AF is simply not an issue.
Very occasionally it makes a HUGE difference. For example I was photographing a wedding party at the weekend and it was so dark that the 5DII wouldn't focus at all even with an f1.4 lens. I swapped bodies and fitted the 5DIII (it was on the long lens) and although it was extremely sluggish it was still locking focus, even with the edge points; really impressive! I've also photographed low flying jets and my percentage of keepers was higher with the 5DIII, but the 5DII would have still done me proud.

In summary - get the 5DII if the savings mean you can buy decent glass.
 
lots of tangents here
but I think the 5Dii won't disappoint
the focusing on L glass should be good enough unless you're doing fast moving sports or animal photography
 
Then if you think it's going to be a problem then don't get it then as you won't like it then
How about the6d full frame, newer af, it's near 3 years newer so has to have some good point for 1700
 
Sounds like a lot of people on this thread are trying to discuss why a Ferrari is crap at towing caravans.

5D's by their very nature are skewed towards relatively static subjects - landscapes, portraiture, architecture, etc.

Yes they'll photograph fast moving objects like F1 or even children :), but if that's your primary focus buy something for the job 1D MK1,2,3, etc

I have a 5D (sadly MK11's and 111's are well out of my price range), it's my favourite body when I shoot Landscapes and static cars, etc, but when I'm shooting motorsports\wildlife I go for my MK11N as that's what it's built for.

Personally I'd plump for the MK11 and some decent glass

Just my 2p
 
Chris, go and have a play with a D600 before stumping nearly 2k on one. The AF is better than the 5DII if it really is taken from the D7000, but it's not perfect and is worse than the D300/D700/D3.

Maybe also try to meet someone with a 5DII who'll let you have a play under the conditions you're going to be shooting. If you're using it with fast primes in low light with moving (or even stationary!) targets it'll be found wanting.
 
tuttonp said:
Sounds like a lot of people on this thread are trying to discuss why a Ferrari is crap at towing caravans.

5D's by their very nature are skewed towards relatively static subjects - landscapes, portraiture, architecture, etc.

Yes they'll photograph fast moving objects like F1 or even children :), but if that's your primary focus buy something for the job 1D MK1,2,3, etc

I have a 5D (sadly MK11's and 111's are well out of my price range), it's my favourite body when I shoot Landscapes and static cars, etc, but when I'm shooting motorsports\wildlife I go for my MK11N as that's what it's built for.

Personally I'd plump for the MK11 and some decent glass

Just my 2p
Click to expand...

Sensible post, but I'd go for a 1DsII instead. :)
 
Not as a walk around camera. 1 series are likely to be too heavy for comfort.

Personally, I would always recommend getting the best glass you can. An excellent body (and all those mentioned so far are excellent) is wasted with poor lenses.
 
The23rdman said:
Sensible post, but I'd go for a 1DsII instead. :)
Click to expand...

On my list, but bloody heavy for lugging across the countryside :)

Another + for the 5D (you can always add the extended grip when you need loads of battery life and then leave it at home if you want something a little more 'discrete' for street work, etc)
 
The 5DII focussing is no where near as bad as people think.
I've also got the 5DIII and the only times the improved focussing makes a noticable difference are so far out of most photographers comfort zones that given the OP's list of subjects he may never hit them.

For example, taken last Saturday and the is Bride walking towards me in really low light; a true grab shot but my favourite of the evening.
So far this thread would have you believe I didn't stand a chance.
It was properly dark: 5DII plus 135mm f2.0 used at ISO 6400, 135mm, f2.0, 1/25s :puke:
i-5rh4zhm-X3.jpg


The 5DIII had already been swapped to the 50mm f1.4 to give me a fighting chance in the available light.
The 5DIII did monumentally well, but as this shot proves, the 5DII still cuts the mustard with the best of them :)
 
Yes, but did you have to use the center point to get that shot? I'm not making this issue up, Duncan.
 
No, you are not making it up, but you are banging on about it! I think we all aknowledge that the AF on the 5D2 isn't the best out there, but neither is it totally useless otherwise it wouldn't have sold in the numbers it has. Sure, in low light with fast moving subjects it struggles, but you can use the centre point to get focus and given the number of pixels cropping is easy. And in decent light with slow/static subjects it is absolutely not an issue.
 
I think your just a fanboy to Nikon 23rd everything you have said point to Nikon sorry to say.


Is there any camera that is perfect for ever situation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ianmarsh said:
No, you are not making it up, but you are banging on about it! I think we all aknowledge that the AF on the 5D2 isn't the best out there, but neither is it totally useless otherwise it wouldn't have sold in the numbers it has. Sure, in low light with fast moving subjects it struggles, but you can use the centre point to get focus and given the number of pixels cropping is easy. And in decent light with slow/static subjects it is absolutely not an issue.
Click to expand...

Banging on? Duncan posted a shot with a glowing report and I asked if it was center point. If so you'd expect it to work, but it is a limitation as requires heavy cropping.

Siilver said:
I think your just a fanboy to Nikon 23rd everything you have said point to Nikon sorry to say.


Is there any camera that is perfect for ever situation
Click to expand...

I'm not a fanboy as I've already said. If I could choose one camera it'd be a 5DIII. I don't understand why owners of the 5DII get so tetchy. Did you design the camera?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top