Is the Canon 5D MK II right for me?

[MarkoMijailovic]

I've been happily shooting with a (don't laugh) Nikon D90 for a long time now and never felt limited by it until recently. Megapixels, ISO performance, etc. never have mattered to me, just as the latest and greatest technologies and most expensive this and that's haven't either. I've always been purely about capturing that perfect image. The camera was never anything more than just a recording tool. It still is just that.

That said, as noted, I've recently been limited by my trusty old D90. For starters, I find the noise/grain after ISO 400 to be quite obvious. This isn't too good for someone who likes shooting in as much natural light as I do. Then there's the resolution. 12.3 vs. 21.1... the latter will let me practice my cropping freedom to the (relative) maximum. The D90 just doesn't have enough resolution to retain a good enough amount of detail after cropping. It's funny how I never cared (or rather, noticed) this until recently. Then there's the whole advantage of getting a "true 50mm" when using a 50mm lens and not the crop sensor rendition, which is a multiplication of 1.5 (75mm). 75mm is neither wide nor tight enough for any of my applications. Either portrait/fashion or landscape.

I know my mind probably seems made up to you readers, but I wanted to ask... is it really the right camera for me? For someone shooting predominantly fashion (in natural and studio lighting) and portrait photography.

Luckily I haven't got much tied up in Nikon gear. My most substantial 'investment' was a 70-200, which I'm selling tomorrow and which will cover the cost of a brand new MK II.

I know the 5D MK III and D800 are right around the corner, but I won't be able to afford those, even though I'm sure the features/upgrades will be fantastic. The 5D MK II is now marked down at $1999 brand new and I'm sure I'll do just fine getting by with just a 50mm for a while until I can afford more glass (ideally an 85 1.2 and 24 or 35- plus at some point the 45 2.8 tilt shift). Heck, 99% of my stuff shot on the D90 was with the cheapo 50mm f/1.8- a fantastic lens.

So folks, what do you say?

Sorry if this post seems a bit redundant. I'm just both excited at the prospect of making the change, but at the same time 'worried' for some reason...

Thanks,

Marko M.

P.S. You can check out my site to see the type of stuff I do mainly... www.mrkmfoto.com 99% shot on Nikon D90 with 50mm and the rest with a D700 (which I sold within a week for stupid non-photography reasons) and Mamiya RZ 67.

P.S.S. I should also add that something I was seriously considering doing was buying into another film medium format system (I really love medium format film photography) like the Contax 645 or Hassy 503cw and just saving up with my photography earnings and getting the D800 or MK III a few months after it comes out. Hard decision, but I just feel the need to upgrade now due to the shortcomings of the D90... though I have lived this long with them. Decisions, decisions...

[Tony Jay]

Actually, I think you are posing an interesting question especially in view of the some of the very points you raise.

I own a 5D mark II and it is indeed a very fine camera.
I considered repeating some of the points I made with regard to another question on camera choices in the beginners forum but on visiting your web site I have decided not to bore you with those issues.
I think for you ergonomics and the look and feel of the images produced by a 5D versus a body from the Nikon stable will determine whether changing from a Nikon to a Canon will work for you.

The controls and the menus between the two manufacturers are very different.
I only have limited experience with any Nikon, however, my sister bought one so I have had a chance to play mainly because she expected me to show her how everything worked. I spent a lot of time in the manual - its all there but the menus and controls took some getting used to.

Probably, in summary, the question that I am really posing back to you is whether the 5D will fulfill your creative vision.
If possible try shooting with a 5D (friend or hire) and seeing whether it really fits into your flow.
By the way don't try testing the body with a crappy zoom lens - use the best primary you can find and test its focussing first. The 5D allows one to adjust the autofocus. I have done this with all my lenses that have an autofocus ability (TS lenses don't).


How, or if, the next generation of camera bodies will alter the game is all still mere speculation.
I am sure that I have not covered all the issues pertinent to your situation so ggod luck in your quest.

Regards

Tony Jay

[Rob C]

For my money, you already had the tool you needed: the D700.

A 35mm, the 50mm you already have, and a 135mm or 180mm should provide most of what you require. Swapping brands is a reaction based on wishful thinking; you can't buy an incremental advantage that way, unless (and it's still being debated) without going to the expense of MF digital.

If a Canon of any stripe can give you better available light results than the D700, then I am happy to be proven wrong. I have some amazing b/w prints that I made a while back from shots of some musos in a bar. These were D700 on Auto ISO, shutter around 150th sec., with the 1.8/50 open at about f2, and also with a 135mm and 180mm both at their max of f2.8, all Nikkor primes, of course.

I'm sorry you can't check it out on the website; I had to empty the music gallery because of theft.

Regarding your own site, I had to give up: I clicked on a gallery and just waited and waited until I ran out of patience. As I'm also having problems with my computer since technicians installed wi-fi into the house on Tuesday, it may not be your problem at all. I'll try again at a later date.

Good luck!

Rob C

[MarkoMijailovic]

Rob, I'm not claiming the Canon's noise performance to be superior (heck, even on par) to the Nikon's... I know first hand how great the D700 handles high ISO's... I'm saying it does a better job than the D90- and couple that with the fact that I need the higher resolution (due to loss of resolution during cropping with the D90 and desire to retain more detail in general) and the 5D just seems to make 'sense' to me. The other option is, as I said, to hold out for the D800, which I won't be able to afford...

I just sold the 70-200. Did quite well on the sale... Will be putting in the order for the 5D tomorrow and hopefully have it Thursday, with just enough time to toy around and use it on my shoot Friday.

I'll just shoot with a 50mm until I save up for the 85 1.2. 50's are terrific lenses and are available at such great prices. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is what's responsible for 99% of my images. Thankfully I don't have much at all tied up in Nikon equipment, so the transition will be quite easy.

[marcmccalmont]

Never buy into a 3 year old sensor, 3 years from now you will be shooting with a 6 year old sensor and will be sorry, Buy the latest that is available now if you must have a new camera now or wait and save for the latest technology later this year
Marc

[DaveCurtis]

Rumour has it that the 5d3 will be announced sometime in Feb. see CanonRumors "CR3"

It maybe worth the wait. As said above, it is best to by into the latest sensor, if you can afford it.

[MarkoMijailovic]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately for my wallet), I've never been one to keep up with the latest technologies and spring for the best and most expensive things. The camera is nothing more than just a recording device- it's just that my current recording device is due for an 'update' and my 'update' happens to be a bit dated; so what? It's still an upgrade to what I'm using now and a perfectly adequate one at that, in my opinion. While it may not be relevant for much longer (let alone three years from now), I think I'd be more than satisfied with it and much more importantly, get some great imagery from it. Not to mention at it's current price point of $1999 is much more attractive to me than the undoubtedly $4k priced impending replacement. Will the 36 rumored megapixels really make that much of a difference to anyone not pixel peeping? Will the noise performance be THAT much better?

Am I just bored and hoping that this 'new' system will give me thrills my old one couldn't? Hell no, that's the last thing I'm looking for. Anyone who's looking for thrills in cameras is looking in the wrong place! I'm just looking for something that'll do what I need it to do better than what I'm currently using- and I shoot full time, so I'm not just some pixel peeper looking to have a megapixel wank fest. I've got real world demands that I need to have met. Again, higher resolution, better ISO performance and full frame (50mm = 50mm).

I'm probably gonna' feel all down once the MKIII comes out with its (again, rumored) 15 megapixel 'raise', better noise performance, flash, higher quality video and an undoubted plethora of other upgrades, but hey what can you do... I wanted a D3s since it came out, but could just never swing it!

[Chairman Bill]

Some lovely portraits on your site.

You've obviously now made your mind up about the Canon, but just in case it's not too late, I'd reconsider the D700 you've already owned. When I switched from film to mainly digital (just a few years ago; I'm still shooting film too), I considered digital, mainly a Canon 5D because at the time Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera, and I had no AF lenses & just 3 (28 f3.5, 50 f1.8 & a 105 f2.5) primes for my FM & FE.

I tried Oly, then borrowed a Canon, and settled with Nikon. It was a build quality & ergonomics thing - the D200 just felt right. When I moved on to the D700, I knew there was no going back. A mate has a 5D mkII, and the image quality is very, very good. I prefer the D700 for skin tones though, and it simply handles better. And that handling issue is important.

If I shot just landscapes, the 5D mkII would be great (as long as you can keep it nice & dry), but nobody pixel-peeps portraits. You look at the whole, not individual features as in a landscape photo. Being able to see the ring in the nose of the bull in the corner of the far field, might be important for some when viewing a pastoral scene, but nobody gets that up close & personal with detail in a portrait. Do they? And if you're shooting in available light, the D700 out-does the 5D at high ISOs. And at A3, maybe even A2, I don't think the 5D will out-resolve the D700 to that great an extent with portraits

[Rob C]

Well, you echoed my experiences, Chairman: first the D200 (which I still have), and then the D700 which gets all the work apart from the cellphone, I have to admit, if only because it's always with me.

We were not told why the OP rid himself of his D700; unless we are given that information we can never understand his position today. Like you, I also advised another D700.

Ciao -

Rob C

[MarkoMijailovic]

Got rid of the D700 for silly (girl-related) reasons... 

[Chairman Bill]

Got rid of the D700 for silly (girl-related) reasons... 

Ah, get a new girl & new D700 

[Rob C]

Ah, get a new girl & new D700 

No contest. Get the Nikon.

Rob C

[MarkoMijailovic]

You know, after lots of thought, I've decided to wait out and get the D700's replacement when it comes out.

Why not just get a D700 now?

Well, because, as I mentioned a few times now, I, for my type of work, require a higher resolution sensor. The D800, at the rumored 36 megapixels, would be more than perfect for my needs; heck if they just bring it up to even 24 it'll be perfect. My work sometimes requires extensive cropping and printing to large sizes, not to mention need to retain detail. My decision to stick to Nikon isn't just 'cause of the large sensor the impending successor to the D700 will have, but because of my love for Nikon glass, too- and not to mention how stellar the noise performance of these higher end Nikon's is. It will cost me most likely double what I was looking to spend and I'll have to live with one lens for a while, but I'm fine with that, knowing I'll get what I want and stick to it for years to come. Shouldn't be a problem, as a 50mm lives on my D90 99.9% of the time (heck, that's all I've got now- two 50's).

[Chairman Bill]

Sounds like a plan. Hopefully you'll be very happy together.

[marcmccalmont]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately for my wallet), I've never been one to keep up with the latest technologies and spring for the best and most expensive things. The camera is nothing more than just a recording device- it's just that my current recording device is due for an 'update' and my 'update' happens to be a bit dated; so what? It's still an upgrade to what I'm using now and a perfectly adequate one at that, in my opinion. While it may not be relevant for much longer (let alone three years from now), I think I'd be more than satisfied with it and much more importantly, get some great imagery from it. Not to mention at it's current price point of $1999 is much more attractive to me than the undoubtedly $4k priced impending replacement. Will the 36 rumored megapixels really make that much of a difference to anyone not pixel peeping? Will the noise performance be THAT much better?

Am I just bored and hoping that this 'new' system will give me thrills my old one couldn't? Hell no, that's the last thing I'm looking for. Anyone who's looking for thrills in cameras is looking in the wrong place! I'm just looking for something that'll do what I need it to do better than what I'm currently using- and I shoot full time, so I'm not just some pixel peeper looking to have a megapixel wank fest. I've got real world demands that I need to have met. Again, higher resolution, better ISO performance and full frame (50mm = 50mm).

I'm probably gonna' feel all down once the MKIII comes out with its (again, rumored) 15 megapixel 'raise', better noise performance, flash, higher quality video and an undoubted plethora of other upgrades, but hey what can you do... I wanted a D3s since it came out, but could just never swing it!

The difference between the shadow noise on my 5DII(2008) and K5(2011) makes me choose the K5 more than the 5DII, The Canon lens selection is much better but the difference in DR is very noticeable in every day shooting, not just pixel peeping.
Marc

[Rob C]

You know, after lots of thought, I've decided to wait out and get the D700's replacement when it comes out.

Why not just get a D700 now?

Well, because, as I mentioned a few times now, I, for my type of work, require a higher resolution sensor. The D800, at the rumored 36 megapixels, would be more than perfect for my needs; heck if they just bring it up to even 24 it'll be perfect. My work sometimes requires extensive cropping and printing to large sizes, not to mention need to retain detail. My decision to stick to Nikon isn't just 'cause of the large sensor the impending successor to the D700 will have, but because of my love for Nikon glass, too- and not to mention how stellar the noise performance of these higher end Nikon's is. It will cost me most likely double what I was looking to spend and I'll have to live with one lens for a while, but I'm fine with that, knowing I'll get what I want and stick to it for years to come. Shouldn't be a problem, as a 50mm lives on my D90 99.9% of the time (heck, that's all I've got now- two 50's).

Man, your problems aren't with the camera you had - they are of your own making as you have now explained.

If you limit yourself to a single optic, of course you're going to have problems and the need to blow things up too far! Just buy a longer lens.

You say you are a working photographer with clients: unless you are doing something else very wrongly, such as habitually forgetting to invoice them, where's the problem with buying what you need? Please, not the girlfriend?

Rob C