coons10 wrote:
OK guys tell me what to do? I finally get to upgrade to a FF sensor but I don't quite have enough cash for the 5D3. So I have to choose between the 6D or the 5D2.
6D Body Only is $2,100, or w/24-105 bundle is $2,700.
5D2 Body Only is $1,800, or w/24-105 bundle is $2,500.
Any suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks!
Since you'll take any suggestions...If you were willing to stretch for the 6D bundle, I would say to just sit on it awhile. The way the 5D MkIII prices are dipping lately you may just be able to grab one of the $2500 deals on fleabay and save just a tad and pick up a 17-40L. Additionally, maybe the 5D MkIII will dip even further the first of the New Year. If time is a factor and you wish to purchase now I'd say the 5D MkII bundle, it's a fine camera.
Don't forget if you are shooting a 20mm focal length on a crop sensor body then that is about 28mm equivalent on a FF. So the 24 - 105mm will actually be wider at the short end.
retrofocus wrote:
IMO ist is a huge drawback, 1% difference is visible. You don't lose a shot, but it might need more cropping in post processing since your final photo includes more area than you expect from your original composition. Of course LiveView avoids this concern since it is always 100%. But I personally use in most cases the viewfinder still. And already the 98% in my 5D II gets sometimes annoying even I always add in my mind the 2% missing to the composition. Even more than the improvement in AF, the 100% viewfinder in the 5D III is the best improvement in this cmera IMO. ...Show more →
Of course we'd all prefer a 100% VF but in reality I have to crop all my images anyway. Even if I print full frame 12x18 or 13x19 I end up losing more than 3% due to the mat and frame. And most of the time people prefer to use standard aspect ratio frames and mats such as 11x14 or 20x30, requiring cropping more than 15% of the frame (even more once matted). So I learned long ago to compose a bit on the lose side or suffer clipped subjects/scenes.
I usually try to use the full format and not to crop. Of course I have to, too. But regular not because there is something in the image I did not see because of the viewfinder restrictions. It still happens to often, that I do not hold the camera in horizontal level (I turn it to the right about 1.5-2 degrees), when shooting "action". I know this should have been under controll after 35 years of shooting, but it is still not often.
I will explore my options on a used 5Dmk2. If I can find a lightly used body for around $1k, that will give much more budget flexibility for nice fast glass.
(You guys can keep arguing over the various details if you want...) I learn a little more with each of your opinions. Thanks again!
Gochugogi wrote:
Of course we'd all prefer a 100% VF but in reality I have to crop all my images anyway. Even if I print full frame 12x18 or 13x19 I end up losing more than 3% due to the mat and frame. And most of the time people prefer to use standard aspect ratio frames and mats such as 11x14 or 20x30, requiring cropping more than 15% of the frame (even more once matted). So I learned long ago to compose a bit on the lose side or suffer clipped subjects/scenes.
I don't have this kind of workflow. Over 80% of my photos remains uncropped. I think you mix up two different things here. You can always crop in post-processing to whatever picture ratio you prefer, this has nothing to do with the viewfinder per se. Not saying that you are sloppy in your original composition through the viewfinder, but I always defend the what-you-see-is-what-you-get principle. If I buy a several $$$$ camera, I want to have 100% viewfinder coverage if possible!
retrofocus wrote:
I don't have this kind of workflow. Over 80% of my photos remains uncropped. I think you mix up two different things here. You can always crop in post-processing to whatever picture ratio you prefer, this has nothing to do with the viewfinder per se. Not saying that you are sloppy in your original composition through the viewfinder, but I always defend the what-you-see-is-what-you-get principle. If I buy a several $$$$ camera, I want to have 100% viewfinder coverage if possible!
Thatīs understandable of course. But I like what else 6D offers and if I want a 6D it looks a 100% VF is not possible because there is none. We can discuss, why Canon went this step back with 6D.
But the missing joystick is less acceptable for me than the missing 3% of VF (compared to 5D III or 1% compared to 5D II), even I would like to have them both.
There are many things not understandable to a small brain like mine. Why did they put a better sensor into 6D than in 5D III? Why a higher sensitiv center AF point? Why did they switch memory cards? Why let the joystick go? And so on.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Thatīs understandable of course. But I like what else 6D offers and if I want a 6D it looks a 100% VF is not possible because there is none. We can discuss, why Canon went this step back with 6D.
But the missing joystick is less acceptable for me than the missing 3% of VF (compared to 5D III or 1% compared to 5D II), even I would like to have them both.
There are many things not understandable to a small brain like mine. Why did they put a better sensor into 6D than in 5D III? Why a higher sensitiv center AF point? Why did they switch memory cards? Why let the joystick go? And so on. ...Show more →
Yes, I understand you, and your points are well taken (BTW, it is a 98% viewfinder in the 5D II, so you lose 2%, but let's not get picky over it now). I think the 6D got the slightly improved sensor after people criticized the first released 5D III in regard to its sensor (I was and am one of them) which didn't lead to any excitement. So Canon had to do something, and this is what they came up with in the 6D. I am not going further, it is okay IMO for an entry level FF camera but not for the 5D III itself (reason why I am not buying the 5D III). The AF system of the 6D is very similar to our 5D II AF system with - again - slight improvement to avoid that people are saying "it is the same (outdated) system". So Canon made the central AF point more sensitive. Of course Canon was not willing to include the same AF system in the 6D as they put into the 5D III. Since the reason to buy a 5D III is more or less just for the AF, they would kill their flagship 5D III sales by adding the same AF into the 6D.
Switch from CF to SD cards is likely because SD cards are sufficient for regular photography. The advantage for CF cards is just for video. The 6D is not a videographer camera.
The joystick likely was let go because Canon wanted to make the 6D body also cheaper, or better said, cheaper looking. Again likely this was done to avoid in-house competition with the 5D III.
Well....IF Canon had implemented a newer sensor technology in the 1Dx and in the 5D III, then they could have just used the now-built in sensor of the 6D and give you all the rest of the 5D III goodies including AF in the 6D. The sensor difference itself would have been enough to make a difference in price and avoid in-house competition between 5D III and 6D. But.....Canon had to go back to the crippling strategy 101 to keep a gap between 6D and 5D III.
I have a 5D II. If the choice is limited to new bodies, then I'd choose the 6D. The two main reasons are noise and Auto ISO. The 5D II doesn't do Auto ISO in Manual mode. For event photography, I'd use that feature constantly, along with the upper ISO range.
I will explore my options on a used 5Dmk2. If I can find a lightly used body for around $1k, that will give much more budget flexibility for nice fast glass.
(You guys can keep arguing over the various details if you want...) I learn a little more with each of your opinions. Thanks again!
Good call! The argument between 6D and used 5DII is silly. The 5DII wins on price by far... Use the extra money on lenses. No reason to buy a 5DII new now that 6D is out... but used, that is a smart option.
coons10 wrote:
Actually that is exactly my plan. I've already got a 70-200L and would add a 17-40L along with the bundled 24-105L.
With the 6D+24-105L bundles you will be right at 5DIII price range. Why not skip the 24-105L and go for the 5DIII body only. You will have the 17-40L and 70-200L to cover the range anyway and 5DIII will serve you great for sports stuff. Just a thought.
Is there a list anywhere of models Canon no longer repair?
What makes you think Canon is the only one that can repair Canon cameras? There are lots of camera repair shops that repair Canon cameras that are over 20 years old. Do you really think you will have the same DSLR 20 years from now
Imagemaster wrote:
What makes you think Canon is the only one that can repair Canon cameras? There are lots of camera repair shops that repair Canon cameras that are over 20 years old. Do you really think you will have the same DSLR 20 years from now
Had my 3 decades old A-1 repaired in late 2011, squeak removed, new seals, new focusing screen installed; had a spare, and spit-shined n newish looking, all for under $200...it functions like it did in 78'
I'd not be worrying about 5D2 repairs for at least...well, a long time...get one and enjoy a great camera.
Chances are, if the OP is moving to a full frame sensor, if he or she already has a APSC camera that takes SD cards. when your price out the 5D2, keep in mind you need Compact flash cards (They are not cheap).
gdanmitchell wrote:
This is mostly a problem in the minds of bored forumtographers... ;-)
Dan
I can almost agree with you, Dan.
I do know there is variability in how badly some 5D2s (and 7Ds) react to shadow raising.
I had one that was pretty weak in this category, so weak in fact that it actually did affect the final product (web viewing) on more than one occasion. Luckily I was able to mitigate most (but not all) of this by some creative NR using Topaz.
It didn't happen enough to justify going crazy over it, but it can certainly an issue for some shots and it has nothing to do with being a forumtographer, but being caught in a less-than-perfect photographic situation and having to make-do.
I consider this shadow raising ability something very nice to have, just like articulating LCDs.
I use to raise my nose at articulating LCDs because everyone knew those were only found on "newbie" P&S and I was a real man dammit, with a Canon 40D!
After I used one on an E-5 (then A77 then OM-D), I have a hard time not using one now - they're just really damn useful.
Not on every shot, mind you, but it's simply a tool to help you get the shot you want.
Same thing with shadow raising - when you've got some crazy dynamic range going on and you don't have time to bracket or set up reflectors or fill flash just wouldn't work, a nice shadow raising capability is extremely nice to have.
All that said - there is no way I would let this particular issue dissuade me from getting any camera, really. I dealt with it with my aforementioned E-5 (now you talk about crappy shadow raising, THAT camera had crappy shadow raising) and still liked the camera.
For the OP - Used 5D2 over 6D any day, especially if that means something like Used 5D2 + 17-40 vs just 6D.
