I have followed many of the threads here related to this. Most of the arguments for are related to better focus, better high ISO etc.
I am currently using 5D Mark II and almost entirely for landscape. I rely a lot of live view for critical focus and also use manual focus alt lenses. So better AF as well as high ISO does not add much of a value.
I also use a 7D and having similar user interface on both is an argument for.
So my question is primarily related to:
a. Image quality. Is this an argument for spending another $2K for.
b. Sensor dust. I end up doing a lot of cleaning of sensor with the mark 2. Comparatively the 7D requires much less. Is this an argument for going for the mark 3.
I don't see how the Mark III provides any benefit for tripod-mounted shooting at base ISO, unless the autobraketing or HDR features are super important to you.
I think it's inevitable that Canon will introduce a higher resolution camera at some point, but until then I'd stand pat, or consider a lateral move to a D800 for landscape work. (But there are issues with Nikon's Live View implementation that can be problematic--see Fred's post.)
1. There is no such thing as too many pixels for landscapes
2. I don't see why landscape capture must be one single frame
I have a 10 frame (2 rows of 5 pictures) of Dead Horse Point, Utah. Taken with 5D1, 130 million pixels, excluding overlap. While I printed it at a microscopic 20"x30", I could have printed at 40"x 60” or larger, and then placed my eyeball 8" away from the huge print. The print is RAZOR sharp by any standard. You cannot see the slightest seam in the PTGui stitched picture. It was assembled automatically; I didn't have to place stitching points.
For people that claim that stitching takes too long, if I have already set manual exposure and white balance, and loosened the tripod pan head, I can lay 3 portrait orientation 5DII frames (66 Million pixels) in a landscape orientation print, in two seconds.
Below is overall Dead Horse Point. Second picture is 100% crop (lower right) from one of 10 frames. The crop picture show considerable detail (double track road), that is not even visible in compressed overall picture. ...Show more →
That's fine for stationary images...but many landscapes have moving parts that would be difficult to stitch together. Also, who wants the extra work in PP if it can be avoided.
Jameel - I use my 5D2 for almost exactly the same things as you. I also own a 7D, as well as a 1D4, and they are all used for very specific purposes. I have not found a good justification for upgrading to a 5D3, other than it could potentially allow me to consolidate two cameras into 1. However, making that decision as to which of the 7D or 1D4 would go with the 5D3 is a decision I do not want to make. I like having 3 bodies and do not want to revert to just 2. 5D2 for Landscape, 1D4 for BIF and sports, and 7D for focal length limited occasions with my 300F2.8+2XIII. Why should I spend more money to have fewer cameras?
Fred Miranda wrote:
For strictly landscape work, my advice is to keep your Mark II and wait for the next update from Canon.
Get the Canon 24mm TS-E instead.
Fred, I already have that lens. The 17 TSE is something I have been eyeing for a while.
I upgraded to the 5D Mark III for only one reason - I had made the mistake of already selling my 5D Mark II.
I'm not sure if it's the camera, or the new version of LightRoom, or just my imagination - but it appears to me that the 5D Mark III files have a tiny bit more detail and micro-contrast, and a more pleasing colour palette (I hate to say it, but the colours seem more "Nikon-like)... definitely no complaints so far.
If al, you ever use your camera for is landscape I'd stay put..
However are there really people in the world who only take landscape photos?
I mean like no family portraits, dog pics, the odd sorts photo, street pics while traveling?
Sorry but the impression I have got since the release of the Mk3 s we have a clique group who have never thought of using a camera for anything other than shooting hills and trees.
If that's your thing stay with the mk2..however if you shoot anything that moves I'd get the mk3 in a heartbeat its a much mre complete camera for shooting anything that moves..ie people,planes,cars,dogs,buses,birds etc.
dehowie wrote:
If al, you ever use your camera for is landscape I'd stay put..
However are there really people in the world who only take landscape photos?
I mean like no family portraits, dog pics, the odd sorts photo, street pics while traveling?
Sorry but the impression I have got since the release of the Mk3 s we have a clique group who have never thought of using a camera for anything other than shooting hills and trees.
If that's your thing stay with the mk2..however if you shoot anything that moves I'd get the mk3 in a heartbeat its a much mre complete camera for shooting anything that moves..ie people,planes,cars,dogs,buses,birds etc....Show more →
Note I do have the 7D as well and that serves as my primary for when I need better AF. And yes I do shoot other subjects
I shoot a 5D2, I do a lot of landscape work (and some other subjects), I always use live view when shooting landscape but use AF for other subjects.
I think the 5D3 sounds like a great camera. If I didn't have a camera and was looking for a full frame Canon body I would not hesitate at all about getting it.
But I'm clear on my decision to not update my 5D2 to a 5D3. The image quality for typical landscape shooting isn't going to be different in any visible way. I'm not sure what your issue is with the 5D2 dust reduction system, since it works quite well for me. In any case, if the 5D2 system isn't doing the trick, the 5D3 system almost certainly won't either.
Dan
JameelH wrote:
I have followed many of the threads here related to this. Most of the arguments for are related to better focus, better high ISO etc.
I am currently using 5D Mark II and almost entirely for landscape. I rely a lot of live view for critical focus and also use manual focus alt lenses. So better AF as well as high ISO does not add much of a value.
I also use a 7D and having similar user interface on both is an argument for.
So my question is primarily related to:
a. Image quality. Is this an argument for spending another $2K for.
b. Sensor dust. I end up doing a lot of cleaning of sensor with the mark 2. Comparatively the 7D requires much less. Is this an argument for going for the mark 3.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I shoot a 5D2, I do a lot of landscape work (and some other subjects), I always use live view when shooting landscape but use AF for other subjects.
I think the 5D3 sounds like a great camera. If I didn't have a camera and was looking for a full frame Canon body I would not hesitate at all about getting it.
But I'm clear on my decision to not update my 5D2 to a 5D3. The image quality for typical landscape shooting isn't going to be different in any visible way. I'm not sure what your issue is with the 5D2 dust reduction system, since it works quite well for me. In any case, if the 5D2 system isn't doing the trick, the 5D3 system almost certainly won't either.
+1, I am with Dan on this one...too little to see the differences for $2000 more. A CLP refurbished 5D2 costs only $1400 plus tax. Not much in return if you try to swap unless you need better AF and FPS.
Re: dust. Almost after every shoot, I find dust on the sensor which the auto cleaning system doesn't remove. My most used non photographic gear is a sensor loupe and arctic butterfly
gdanmitchell wrote:
I shoot a 5D2, I do a lot of landscape work (and some other subjects), I always use live view when shooting landscape but use AF for other subjects.
I think the 5D3 sounds like a great camera. If I didn't have a camera and was looking for a full frame Canon body I would not hesitate at all about getting it.
But I'm clear on my decision to not update my 5D2 to a 5D3. The image quality for typical landscape shooting isn't going to be different in any visible way. I'm not sure what your issue is with the 5D2 dust reduction system, since it works quite well for me. In any case, if the 5D2 system isn't doing the trick, the 5D3 system almost certainly won't either.
But Dan, you are missing out on all the enhanced 3D effect and magic the 5DIII offers. And of all people, I know YOU, are all about 3D effect and magic.
Hi, I just got the 5D3 and have been using the 1DS3 for 4 years.
For low ISO (RAW) work and MF using live view, it is NOT worth the upgrade. The 5D3 has basically the same resolution and low iso performance as the 5D2 and 1DS3, if anything the 1DS3 might have a hair more res at the low ISOs (50-200). Dynamic range and color is similar. Dust? I have no idea yet.
The best DSLR for that type of work is the D800/E no question (in regards to Image Quality only)
BUT, if you shoot JPG, the auto lens correction of the 5D3 is a big plus, also the AF 5D3 is the BEST (faster, most consistent, more accurate) than any Canon DSLR to date. Let alone the on in the 5D2!
The weather sealing might also be better on the 5D3, but that is something I am not willing to test.
BUT, overall, for your needs, stay put. Get more glass. The new Canon lenses are AMAZING.
Since you are using alt glass you may have trouble with some of you AF-confirm adapters on the 5DIII. A friend of mine has had problems with this after switching to the mark III. Otherwise it's a great camera. You could sell you 7D to finance the upgrade since you probably won't be needing it.
But my feeling is that you should keep the 5DII (and get 24TSII like Fred suggested).
JameelH wrote:
I have followed many of the threads here related to this. Most of the arguments for are related to better focus, better high ISO etc.
I am currently using 5D Mark II and almost entirely for landscape. I rely a lot of live view for critical focus and also use manual focus alt lenses. So better AF as well as high ISO does not add much of a value.
I also use a 7D and having similar user interface on both is an argument for.
So my question is primarily related to:
a. Image quality. Is this an argument for spending another $2K for.
b. Sensor dust. I end up doing a lot of cleaning of sensor with the mark 2. Comparatively the 7D requires much less. Is this an argument for going for the mark 3.
if you all you shoot are ISO100-200 RAWs using liveview for focusing then save your money, it won't be better, not even a little I don't think
That said it IS much nicer for sure, but it's all about AF, fps, body response, UI improvements (many of which are more important to the more active shooter), video, and a bit about high iso. For anything but what you do, it is better.
