chengpenguin
Senior Member
andywan83 said:
No, they will look back. And ask: "How did I survive 3 years with the 5D2?"
Fate of 5D2 after 5d3 appearance?
- Thread starter denisme
- Start date
No, they will look back. And ask: "How did I survive 3 years with the 5D2?"
surrephoto
Senior Member
It is undeniable that 5D Mark II had rubbish AF system for its time.
However the difference of the 5D Mark III compared to the mark II is mainly ergonomics & AF refinements and tweaking to the image quality.
I hope the 5D Mark II "apologetics" understand clearly that the Mark II will definately not perform better than the Mark III in these categories...
1. Large Aperture Photography
2. Sports Photography
3. Photojournalistic wedding photography
4. Low light photography
There is a difference between "can cope with" and "cope well".
This means a HUGE improvement.
In terms of photography and not videography... the most value for money D-SLR near S$2k 2nd hand is sadly the D700 which completely trumps the 5DII in AF, FPS, Flash exposure & every ergonomic aspect.
Peace and cheers.
However the difference of the 5D Mark III compared to the mark II is mainly ergonomics & AF refinements and tweaking to the image quality.
I hope the 5D Mark II "apologetics" understand clearly that the Mark II will definately not perform better than the Mark III in these categories...
1. Large Aperture Photography
2. Sports Photography
3. Photojournalistic wedding photography
4. Low light photography
There is a difference between "can cope with" and "cope well".
This means a HUGE improvement.
In terms of photography and not videography... the most value for money D-SLR near S$2k 2nd hand is sadly the D700 which completely trumps the 5DII in AF, FPS, Flash exposure & every ergonomic aspect.
Peace and cheers.
chengpenguin
Senior Member
surrephoto said:
Great piece of advice crafted for the self-denials. Thanks!
ManWearPants
Senior Member
As an amateur, I don't see the need to upgrade mk2 to mk3. I think can use for another 3 years and see what Mk4 brings. I am staying with my MkII
Halfmoon
Senior Member
As an amateur, I don't see the need to upgrade mk2 to mk3. I think can use for another 3 years and see what Mk4 brings. I am staying with my MkII
Just enjoy shooting with whatever you have..... and when you need it, then upgrade....
Wants are limitless............
avsquare
Senior Member
the root cause evil.
Halfmoon
Senior Member
No.... lust is the worst......
Halfmoon
Senior Member
I survived 400D for 4-5 yrs, and still using it and still surviving...
It is actually an art for photographer to overcome the body limitation, and lens limitation........
incognito6174
New Member
Hello, I'm not sure we can call that mk2 had a 'rubbish' AF system. Yes, mk3 has made a considerable improvement, but still calling a previous version's AF rubbish (esp. when it was 4 years ago and ahead of all other cameras of its time) seems a bit harsh to me Also, mk3 has improved more than just ergonomics and 'tweaking' to IQ. Canon has smartly avoided the megapixel race (unlike Nikon) and concentrated on improving AF and IQ, plus a faster processor for better transfer speeds by listening to feedback from consumers. Not to mention a better sensor (quite expected). So yes, mk3 IS a better camera than mk2, but we still cannot call the AF of mk2 as rubbish
And of course, mk2 is not expected to perform better than mk3, else why would a company bother with an upgrade?
Btw, online prices in Japan (e.g. kakaku.com for mk2) have already dropped to $2500 (incl. any adverse forex fluctuations). In the country of its origin, if a camera is dropping prices, I'm sure other countries will follow suit. Check the price graph here to see how the price of mk2 kept dropping right until the point mk3 was announced on Mar 2. A couple of weeks later, mk2 price increases, in a last ditch effort to squeeze some money while stocks last. This is pretty natural in appliances business (I know because I am in this business )
As far as the categories below are under consideration: in terms of photography that requires a fast AF (sports, wildlife etc.), mk3 will perform better, but for wedding photography or indoor pics (read low light), the mk2 sensor will still suffice, IMHO.
Peace and cheers too :thumbsup:
Btw, anyone knows the latest in-market price for mk2? Someone mentioned before in this thread that the grey set is still $2700 here. Anyone checked it lately? The pricing guide for Canon cameras hasn't been updated for mk2 price since Aug11, hence asking.
Also, mk3 has improved more than just ergonomics and 'tweaking' to IQ. Canon has smartly avoided the megapixel race (unlike Nikon) and concentrated on improving AF and IQ, plus a faster processor for better transfer speeds by listening to feedback from consumers. Not to mention a better sensor (quite expected). So yes, mk3 IS a better camera than mk2, but we still cannot call the AF of mk2 as rubbish And of course, mk2 is not expected to perform better than mk3, else why would a company bother with an upgrade?
Btw, online prices in Japan (e.g. kakaku.com for mk2) have already dropped to $2500 (incl. any adverse forex fluctuations). In the country of its origin, if a camera is dropping prices, I'm sure other countries will follow suit. Check the price graph here to see how the price of mk2 kept dropping right until the point mk3 was announced on Mar 2. A couple of weeks later, mk2 price increases, in a last ditch effort to squeeze some money while stocks last. This is pretty natural in appliances business (I know because I am in this business
)As far as the categories below are under consideration: in terms of photography that requires a fast AF (sports, wildlife etc.), mk3 will perform better, but for wedding photography or indoor pics (read low light), the mk2 sensor will still suffice, IMHO.
Peace and cheers too :thumbsup:
Btw, anyone knows the latest in-market price for mk2? Someone mentioned before in this thread that the grey set is still $2700 here. Anyone checked it lately? The pricing guide for Canon cameras hasn't been updated for mk2 price since Aug11, hence asking.
Last edited:
surrephoto
Senior Member
Hello, I'm not sure we can call that mk2 had a 'rubbish' AF system. Yes, mk3 has made a considerable improvement, but still calling a previous version's AF rubbish (esp. when it was 4 years ago and ahead of all other cameras of its time) seems a bit harsh to me
And of course, mk2 is not expected to perform better than mk3, else why would a company bother with an upgrade?
Btw, online prices in Japan (e.g. kakaku.com for mk2) have already dropped to $2500 (incl. any adverse forex fluctuations). In the country of its origin, if a camera is dropping prices, I'm sure other countries will follow suit. Check the price graph here to see how the price of mk2 kept dropping right until the point mk3 was announced on Mar 2. A couple of weeks later, mk2 price increases, in a last ditch effort to squeeze some money while stocks last. This is pretty natural in appliances business (I know because I am in this business
As far as the categories below are under consideration: in terms of photography that requires a fast AF (sports, wildlife etc.), mk3 will perform better, but for wedding photography or indoor pics (read low light), the mk2 sensor will still suffice, IMHO.
Peace and cheers too :thumbsup:
Btw, anyone knows the latest in-market price for mk2? Someone mentioned before in this thread that the grey set is still $2700 here. Anyone checked it lately? The pricing guide for Canon cameras hasn't been updated for mk2 price since Aug11, hence asking.
Hi incognito.
Everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wants.
However, are you sure that the 5D2's AF was "Ahead of all other cameras of it's time"? What about the 45-point system from the Eos-3 to 1D Mark III which preceeded the 5D Mark II?
Infact the 40D had 9 cross points in comparison to 5D Mark II's, ahem... ahem... r*bb*sh AF which had 1 cross-type point. But i'd also like to say that a cross-point isn't necessary a good point btw.
NewbieInCS
Senior Member
Hello, I'm not sure we can call that mk2 had a 'rubbish' AF system. Yes, mk3 has made a considerable improvement, but still calling a previous version's AF rubbish (esp. when it was 4 years ago and ahead of all other cameras of its time) seems a bit harsh to me
Maybe you want to google for 5d ii af...the only thing on the 5d2 ahead of its time is the sensor. The af was inherited from the original 5d and was heavily criticized when it made it's reappearance in the 5d ii 3.5 years ago. In comparison, nikon had the 51pts af multi-cam fx3500 in the d700. One of the canon director(masaya?) came out with crap reason for the af sensor. IIRC, he said something like the mirror box area is too small to accomodate a better af system, plus the af system on the original 5d is already very good...and look where we are today with the 45pt af on the 5d3. So the af technology shrink by 5 times in size?
The 5D2 does not stop being a great camera just because something newer and better has been released. It still takes the same great photos and videos that it always has. Existing 5D2 users should not rush to upgrade unless the 5D3 has something you absolutely need.
I think both cameras can coexist with the 5D2 costing less than the 5D3. A cheaper full frame body and more options is always a good thing.
In my opinion, glass is a way better upgrade over a body any day.
I think both cameras can coexist with the 5D2 costing less than the 5D3. A cheaper full frame body and more options is always a good thing.
In my opinion, glass is a way better upgrade over a body any day.
austinheight
New Member
happychai said:
I think u need to refer to earlier posts. We can easily get it at cheaper price from our "friendly" grey store at about $2500. Maybe u can post in BnS to try, might have some interested parties since its brand new....good luck!
chengpenguin
Senior Member
Yes it does makes sense. Important point is highlighted.
Ideally this is best for consumers. But not ideal for Canon factories. No point for them to keep the 5D2 production flow when they have newer technologies in their 5D3 system.
Depending on what individuals have. But it's true that what makes a image different from others is more the lens than the body.
E.g. You can see a better picture when you use 35L over a kit lens, but you probably can't see difference of photos between 5D2 and 5D3.
Turbonetics
Senior Member
happychai said:
5D3 or 5D2?
