7D or 5D mk III

[doodah]

The 5D3 seems to strike such a good balance in all areas, indeed above average in all. That to me might well be its ‘killer-feature'

Well said. Honestly, after going through a whole series of toy cameras, the 5D3 finally reminds me why I want a DSLR and not a compact camera: shallow depth of field, fast and precise AF, killer high ISO performance and interchangeable lenses that can stretch from ultrawide to telephoto. Everything packaged in a relatively 'manageable' and 'affordable' body as compared to the 1D series. The D700 and D800 would satisfy these criteria too.

 

[kollybie]

Canon is indeed genius in its product marketing... they blend the 5d3 so well even if the price are steep , many people would still pay for it. Like me singaporean is like a DSLR finatic. everywhere i go i would see people holding dslr. Canon should set its factory here HAHA.

 

[5now5torm]

i will go for 16-35 and lastly 70-200 F4 IS as i think F2.8 mk2 is too heavy to travely around

Speaking about 70-200, just last week i was considering between F4 IS, F2.8 and F2.8 IS Mk2. I nearly went for the IS MK 2. Thank god some bro reminded the f2.8 IS weighs 1KG+ and I thus decided to go ahead with the F4 IS.

Over the weekend I brought my 15-85, 70-200 and 50mm f1.4 to shoot some softball. SO GLAD I didnt get the F2.8 IS. I think I would have died from all the weight. >.< lol

 

[kollybie]

Some people are really into quality picture, they will tolerate the weight and carry on... but for me i need to be comfortable when i travel if not i will feel frustrated haha. But now 70-200 F4 IS is good to invest in as the price now is really competitive.

 

[G-man]

....Thank god some bro reminded the f2.8 IS weighs 1KG+ l

To put it into perspective, it's 1.49kg

 

[crysmeth]

Hi Blackmax. Thanks. Still considering as have to worry about budget. Haha.

 

[crysmeth]

Kenneth67. Exactly. I mean if you have nothing good to say then don't. Its a genuine question. Googled and the answer is not there. Whereelse can we ask? Why here and see how the thread has grown that will benefit others.

Really. Some replies you get here is like, ooookkkkk next.

 

[avsquare]

Some people are really into quality picture, they will tolerate the weight and carry on... but for me i need to be comfortable when i travel if not i will feel frustrated haha. But now 70-200 F4 IS is good to invest in as the price now is really competitive.

for me who is used to carry kilograms.. f/2.8 is fine with me

 

[Kenneth67C]

I understand that long time forumers will usually get irritated by repeated questions - hence all the adverse reaction to some type of questions being asked…

Still if I might provide a communicative-theory perspective:

Eg: You enter your office, and your colleague asks you “hows the weather outside?” Will you immediately shoot back “Why don’t you open the window and find out for yourself?” That wouldn’t be all too polite isn't it?
What your colleague is innocently trying to do is probably not so much about the weather - but perhaps trying to start a conversation with you! Why, I would feel honoured someone finds a conversation with me a worthwhile thing to do!!

Perhaps. Maybe. Just maybe - some of these questions on the forums are simply conversation starters. Why shouldn’t a conversation thread on a forum be any different from Face-to-face conversations? Sometimes questions help start discussions. But sometimes too many questions kill conversations. So then perhaps the rules of Face-to-face communications, which we are all experts in, would apply to forums as well isn’t it?

I guess as educated, moral, people of what the ‘govt-men’ call ‘social-ettiquette’, we should consider give a couple of minutes to consider our posts before hitting the reply button

I mean, its just like any other conversation no?

Unfortunately simple ettiquette isn't for everyone.
The 1Dx is a new cam, hasn't been launched yet, hence the question.
On Canon's own official site, I've not seen any official annoucement of it, and not that I haven't searched.
The google search only yielded non-conclusive answers. I can understand if there isn't an answer, but if there is a definitive reply, why not share it?

 

[crysmeth]

Hi, would u be interested in a used 5dm3 body? I have a colleague considering selling his m3 body and 16-35mm lens. Both are less than a mth old. Unfilled warranty and not registered yet. Think he haven't even open the cd and camera strap. Shutter count is less than 100. We bought the camera around same time but he sort of regret. If u keen can pm me your offer. But no guarantee as he is still considering.

Don't buy the 24-70 now. MkII should be coming soon.

Hehe. Yah. Save first.

 

[crysmeth]

Hows the 17 40 compared to 16 35. Noted on the mk3 having a much better ISO hence don't really need a 2.8.

The filter size is a good 77 for the 1740 which means we need not purchase additional. So that's good. At 500g, looks decently light. Hows the IQ for both?

 

[avsquare]

Hows the 17 40 compared to 16 35. Noted on the mk3 having a much better ISO hence don't really need a 2.8.

The filter size is a good 77 for the 1740 which means we need not purchase additional. So that's good. At 500g, looks decently light. Hows the IQ for both?

lots of good review and comparisons online - go read some of them and you would have a better idea the strength and weakness. It's not something that we can easily say in a sentence or two. but in general, the difference isn't about the aperture. 16-35 is clearly the better lens thus the price. but how good and applicable it is to you? the extensive reviews will tell you better.

 

[crysmeth]

lots of good review and comparisons online - go read some of them and you would have a better idea the strength and weakness. It's not something that we can easily say in a sentence or two. but in general, the difference isn't about the aperture. 16-35 is clearly the better lens thus the price. but how good and applicable it is to you? the extensive reviews will tell you better.

Yah. I read too. From photozone and some other forums. Just wanna hear the view from nearer home.

 

[avsquare]

Yah. I read too. From photozone and some other forums. Just wanna hear the view from nearer home.

Nice My personal comment is, there IS a difference in IQ, no doubt. but again, 50% still depend on what the user shoot and tolerance. For me, I will ask: what do you shoot most with this UWA zoom?

Occasional landscape, travel, street photography, portraits? Then 17-40L may fit your bill, the soft corners may not be a big issue based on what you shoot.

Hardcore landscaper that wants to capture every detail clearly? Need the ultimate IQ and do large prints? Look no further than 16-35L then.

 

[crysmeth]

Nice My personal comment is, there IS a difference in IQ, no doubt. but again, 50% still depend on what the user shoot and tolerance. For me, I will ask: what do you shoot most with this UWA zoom?

Occasional landscape, travel, street photography, portraits? Then 17-40L may fit your bill, the soft corners may not be a big issue based on what you shoot.

Hardcore landscaper that wants to capture every detail clearly? Need the ultimate IQ and do large prints? Look no further than 16-35L then.

Thanks. Yah. Scouting for the 17 40. Think the cost is slightly lower. Weight no issue as it's only 100 plus grams lighter. Unlike the 70 200 where it weighs a whopping 1.5kg

 

[avsquare]

Thanks. Yah. Scouting for the 17 40. Think the cost is slightly lower. Weight no issue as it's only 100 plus grams lighter. Unlike the 70 200 where it weighs a whopping 1.5kg

erm, 17-40 is nearly half the cost of 16-35, it's not "slightly" lower

anyways, bright lens are not known to be small or light.. but if you do have a use for bright lens like 70-200 f/2.8, by all means buy it. that's my opinion on it.. don't let weight be an obstacle for you to take the pictures you want.

 

[tecnica]

weight is definitely an issue, especially when you travel.

at least, this is true for me.

for the weight of the 70-200 f2.8, you can carry a 70-200 f4 + 17-40 with room to spare.

 

[alpha1ma]

erm, 17-40 is nearly half the cost of 16-35, it's not "slightly" lower

anyways, bright lens are not known to be small or light.. but if you do have a use for bright lens like 70-200 f/2.8, by all means buy it. that's my opinion on it.. don't let weight be an obstacle for you to take the pictures you want.

i used to bring my 28mm and 10-20mm on my 500d when i walkabout, it was quite a hassle to change lens.

now with 5d3, i can just pair it with a 17-40, allowing wide angle and the reach of my 28mm on 500d all in one.

the only downside i have is f4. not really a fast lens but with 5d3, no more worries when taking shots in low light.

when i am free, i would like to rent 16-35, see how is it like.

prolly gonna save quite sometime to get it if it suits me >.<

 

[avsquare]

weight is definitely an issue, especially when you travel.

at least, this is true for me.

for the weight of the 70-200 f2.8, you can carry a 70-200 f4 + 17-40 with room to spare.

that's why I say whether you have the need or not mah :embrass:

if your trip is a photography trip, it's not surprising to see people carry a big bag with all the lens and gears inside.. but for normal travel to enjoy/shopping, a light-weighted f4 trinity 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L f4 will be a good combo too. Or just 17-40L + 70-200L f4

 

[alpha1ma]

oops i think i quote the wrong person >.< psps

part of the reason i aiming for 17-40 is its cost. second hand market can get from 700-800.