I've not heard of anyone here making the switch to the new 5d mkIII. I'm about ready to make the jump to full frame and am inclined to go with the MkII because of the price difference and the fact that I don't see things in the mkIII that would greatly benefit a landscape photographer. Am I right?
I'm not going anywhere. For me it's gonna be the 5D Mark II until I drop it in a river. Jack, personally I would be a lot more concerned about which glass you're going to use with your new 5D mark II. The money you save with going with a Mark II, you can buy the 24mm tse for $500.00 or less when they rebate the lens. I would also HIGHLY recommend the 70-200 f4 USM L IS. It's as sharp as the beastly 2.8 but $1000.00 less and weighs only 760g which is half the weight of the 2.8.
Jack, I have seen several online reviews that suggest the image quality on the new camera is a material step up from the mark II. Whether it makes sense to replace the mark II is a judgment call but I think if you are not already there then I would take a close look at the mkIII. But your budget is obviously a big factor. I am about to pull the trigger on the new one as a complement to a 1ds mark III that I have loved and that might be a bit better for wildlife and sports. I am also interested in any hearing any first hand experiences with the new camera.
I'm switching from the Mark II to the Nikon D800e. Nikon seems to have knocked the ball out of the park with that camera and the Mark III seems to have fallen a bit flat, so it's enough for me to switch. Plus, I already own the Nikon 14-24, along with several expensive Canon lenses that I can sell and buy less expensive Nikon lenses that are rated just as well. So I think I can make the switch without it costing me anything extra. I'm sure that's not the case with everyone.
Posted by Pam Colander on May 15, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Jack I think Adam Schallau has a 5D Mark3 if you want to shoot him an e-mail. I am in absolutely heaven with the 5D Mark2 I got for what I think was a great price. Glad I waited so I could afford one.
I have a 5dm2 and just bought the 5DM3. I love the 2, but I really like the following in the 5DM3: Multiple exposures, HDR in camera (Not a huge thing, but fun), amazing focusing system, terrific ISO. I am just getting used to it and have much to learn. If it is within budget, I think it is worth getting, but there is nothing at all wrong with the 5DM2 for substantially less money.
5Dm2 is a great value, especially for landscape photography. The 5Dm3 is a great all around camera.
If you don't have a use for the improved AF, frames per second, or high ISO, then save some money and get the 5Dm2
Example: 5Dm3 at the Westminster Butterfly Pavillion - ISO 6,400, f/16, 1/320 sec. handheld, 100 mm Macro
I would not consider shooting above ISO 800 on the 5Dm2.
The 3 custom configuration settings on the mode dial are a nice bonus.
I should add this was from a RAW file.
The 5Dm3 JPEGs have incredibly low noise at high ISO, but that's at the expense of losing significant fine detail.
Bill, did I read your email right, your photo here was shot at ISO 6400? I can't remember ever shooting anything above 800 on the 1dsmarkIII that was this clean. That's really impressive.
Yep, get the 5dIII if you do most of your work shooting indoors without a tripod. Sense my sarcasm... I'm actually more impressed by the incredible clarity/sharpness of that lens. I think that killer 100mm macro goes for about the same price you will be saving by forfeiting improved autofocus, and adding one stop of ISO. Just sayin!
Jack, in the past, I’ve drained my bank account all too often looking for the perfect small collection of gear that fits my needs as a landscape photographer that loves clean detail to print big. Here's what I’ve owned in the past.
Nikon-a myriad of point & shoots, D200, D90, D700, 16-85, 70-300 (twice) 70-200 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 18-200, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 14-24 (twice) 24-70 2.8, Voightlander 40mm, Nokton 58mm, Sigma 150mm macro.
Then I switched to Canon for the resolution and sensor technology. I've owned the 5dmarkII, 17mm tse, 24mm tse, 45mm tse, 70-200 f4, 24-105 and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 G. and Zeiss 21mm Distagon.
Here’s what I have narrowed my choices to that fits my needs. Keep in mind I own a Nikon to Canon lens adapter so I can use any Nikon glass on the Canon body. First and foremost importance to me; sensor technology (dynamic range, and ISO up to 800), Live View and optimal lcd screen, focal lengths 14mm-24mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm, and glass sharpness between f5.6-f19 and overall weight. I seriously do not care much about anything else.
24mm tse-24mm is a perfect focal length for landscape IMO. Or just ask Stan Rose or Jack Brauer and others. This lens may be as sharp as Canon's sharpest lens the legendary 70-200 2.8, and as sharp as Nikon’s 14-24 and 24-70 2.8. Remember, there’s no use for 21mp cameras if your sensor resolution is out-resolving your glass, especially in the case of the D800. In fact, I can basically announce to you if you go D800 and shoot full resolution, you will have to invest in what Nikon users call the “Triple Crown” the pricey 14-24, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. You’re looking at almost 6000.00 in glass. If you go cheaper glass on that D800 you may as well shoot crop mode at 18mp. Over time you will be never happy and burn through $ and other glass until you finally have the Triple Crown.
Back to the 24mm tse; if I want wider focal length then 24mm, I just shift down/up and later stitch the two images together. I can basically go 12-14mm easy with zero distortion (this is big) with a 24mm shift down/up stitch. Two benefits with stitching, I don't need a zoom wide angle lens, and you can print huge when stitching. Thus the added resolution of the D800 doesn't quite make me want to jump back to Nikon. Downside; the 24mmtse is prime, which means you’re gonna have to move around on occasion to set your comp but unlike other focal length primes 24mm is often just right where ever I reside. Also, it’s a heavy lens, and stitching is more work, and it takes some time master the technique. I don’t think Jack B stitches much but I know Stan has been experimenting and liking the results. This lens replaced the legendary Nikon 14-24 and I do not miss it. I will say this, If I didn’t have the 24mm tse, I would still be shooting the Nikon 14-24. There’s a learning curve when shooting Nikon glass on a Canon body but it’s not very difficult. I’ve barrowed the Canons 14mm and 16-35 and I didn’t like the results when compared to the 14-24.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G. $200.00. Tack sharp at f2.8-5.6 and light as a feather. A great focal length for stitching. This lens replaced the $1,200 45mm tilt shift. It's sharper than the 45, it weighs a lot less and I used the $800 I saved on a new pano head.
70-200 f4 UM IS, Ive already said it, as sharp a lens there is and light weight.
That's it...3 lenses. Notice all the glass I’ve bought and sold. I've lost a lot of money in the past using this addictive technique to better my images. With all of this gear I struggled with glass resolution and weight. There was always something out there I had to try, and I paid dearly for it but I'm finally happy.
Lastly, this was my path to happiness. I certainly understand we all go different ways searching for that happiness but if there is something in this post that saves you money in the future I feel the long and wordy post was worth it.
It was easier for me to make the switch since I was coming from the Canon 7D. I now run both and they worked out great for a freelance press event shoot at Disney this past week.
I tend to do less than optimum light shooting, for things like going out to Badwater Death Valley for the Supermoon, or in Antelope Canyon; storm shooting; or out here on the Vegas Strip. The 5D Mark III really works awesome. For the Badwater shoot (more for the weird landscape at max moon light), I had no noise issues until I got up to 6400 ISO. Shooting in a decent 3 am "dust storm" (ok, it was breezy and dusty), I was able to pull off enough good shots at reasonably short exposure times at ISO 1600 - 3200.
The AF is definitely a winner. I tend to mix in some automotive and railroad shooting, so thats a pleasure. Especially railroad stuff, where I my focus in the landscape is a moving locomotive.
Yep I am happy - it fits my needs. And I will bring mine out to the Fling.
As to the Nikon D800 series. Serious applause there. If anything, I hope it brings some of the Medium Format gear down to reachable price ranges. Not sure its a huge advantage - its really optimum for top Nikon lenses at optimum apertures, but otherwise seems to fall into a range that Canon can reach with its optimum lenses. I'm running a Zeiss 21mm and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II, I'm already doing fairly well in sharpness, so I'll wait for Canon to release something to round out the resolution maybe next year. And maybe by that time I'll have upgraded from my four-year old Alienware 17" laptop so I can handle 75 Mb RAWs in Adobe Bloatware.
Jack, I actually have a 5D MII I am thinking about selling, but am waiting for about a month until the 1DX comes out. I will have to sell it and my 1D MIV to get the 1DX. It has MAYBE 1000 shots on it. I have only used it to photograph Eastern State Penitentiary and as a back up here and there, so it is basically new. Let me now if you have an interest.
Here are a couple of 5D Mk2 ISO shots. I'm sure this sort of post was rampant when the camera first debuted but I am really impressed with the ISO performance. This is 1600....female broad-tailed hummer, no noise reduction.
Thanks Pam, and it brings up a few additional thoughts.
Around the time of release, I think most estimated it to be about 2/3 stop better in Raw, and of course it has a very good onboard NR/distortion fix engine in jpeg. I have not seen lab measurements, but I am sure they are not far off. I think if you are buying it to upgrade IQ from the Mark II, its not a big jump. But what it has is a very good AF system, very good weather-sealing, the custom stuff, and all the other stuff that updates the 5D to 2012 feature sets.
I've made my decision...5d mkII it is! I don't feel I need the extras the new one has to offer since I shoot mostly landscapes. Thank you so much Kane for the education on lenses. I need to get a 70-200 and hopefully a 24tse as soon as I can afford it. Thanks for all the input from everyone...and I hope this helps others that may be thinking about making a change.
Discussion
18 repliesIf you don't have a use for the improved AF, frames per second, or high ISO, then save some money and get the 5Dm2
Example: 5Dm3 at the Westminster Butterfly Pavillion - ISO 6,400, f/16, 1/320 sec. handheld, 100 mm Macro
I would not consider shooting above ISO 800 on the 5Dm2.
The 3 custom configuration settings on the mode dial are a nice bonus.
I should add this was from a RAW file.
The 5Dm3 JPEGs have incredibly low noise at high ISO, but that's at the expense of losing significant fine detail.
Selective noise reduction was applied to the background only.
And fine noise is still visible in smooth areas when viewing the original file at 100%.
Yep, get the 5dIII if you do most of your work shooting indoors without a tripod.
Jack, in the past, I’ve drained my bank account all too often looking for the perfect small collection of gear that fits my needs as a landscape photographer that loves clean detail to print big. Here's what I’ve owned in the past.
Nikon-a myriad of point & shoots, D200, D90, D700, 16-85, 70-300 (twice) 70-200 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 18-200, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 14-24 (twice) 24-70 2.8, Voightlander 40mm, Nokton 58mm, Sigma 150mm macro.
Then I switched to Canon for the resolution and sensor technology. I've owned the 5dmarkII, 17mm tse, 24mm tse, 45mm tse, 70-200 f4, 24-105 and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 G. and Zeiss 21mm Distagon.
Here’s what I have narrowed my choices to that fits my needs. Keep in mind I own a Nikon to Canon lens adapter so I can use any Nikon glass on the Canon body. First and foremost importance to me; sensor technology (dynamic range, and ISO up to 800), Live View and optimal lcd screen, focal lengths 14mm-24mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm, and glass sharpness between f5.6-f19 and overall weight. I seriously do not care much about anything else.
24mm tse-24mm is a perfect focal length for landscape IMO. Or just ask Stan Rose or Jack Brauer and others. This lens may be as sharp as Canon's sharpest lens the legendary 70-200 2.8, and as sharp as Nikon’s 14-24 and 24-70 2.8. Remember, there’s no use for 21mp cameras if your sensor resolution is out-resolving your glass, especially in the case of the D800. In fact, I can basically announce to you if you go D800 and shoot full resolution, you will have to invest in what Nikon users call the “Triple Crown” the pricey 14-24, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. You’re looking at almost 6000.00 in glass. If you go cheaper glass on that D800 you may as well shoot crop mode at 18mp. Over time you will be never happy and burn through $ and other glass until you finally have the Triple Crown.
Back to the 24mm tse; if I want wider focal length then 24mm, I just shift down/up and later stitch the two images together. I can basically go 12-14mm easy with zero distortion (this is big) with a 24mm shift down/up stitch. Two benefits with stitching, I don't need a zoom wide angle lens, and you can print huge when stitching. Thus the added resolution of the D800 doesn't quite make me want to jump back to Nikon. Downside; the 24mmtse is prime, which means you’re gonna have to move around on occasion to set your comp but unlike other focal length primes 24mm is often just right where ever I reside. Also, it’s a heavy lens, and stitching is more work, and it takes some time master the technique. I don’t think Jack B stitches much but I know Stan has been experimenting and liking the results. This lens replaced the legendary Nikon 14-24 and I do not miss it. I will say this, If I didn’t have the 24mm tse, I would still be shooting the Nikon 14-24. There’s a learning curve when shooting Nikon glass on a Canon body but it’s not very difficult. I’ve barrowed the Canons 14mm and 16-35 and I didn’t like the results when compared to the 14-24.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G. $200.00. Tack sharp at f2.8-5.6 and light as a feather. A great focal length for stitching. This lens replaced the $1,200 45mm tilt shift. It's sharper than the 45, it weighs a lot less and I used the $800 I saved on a new pano head.
70-200 f4 UM IS, Ive already said it, as sharp a lens there is and light weight.
That's it...3 lenses. Notice all the glass I’ve bought and sold. I've lost a lot of money in the past using this addictive technique to better my images. With all of this gear I struggled with glass resolution and weight. There was always something out there I had to try, and I paid dearly for it but I'm finally happy.
Lastly, this was my path to happiness. I certainly understand we all go different ways searching for that happiness but if there is something in this post that saves you money in the future I feel the long and wordy post was worth it.
It was easier for me to make the switch since I was coming from the Canon 7D. I now run both and they worked out great for a freelance press event shoot at Disney this past week.
I tend to do less than optimum light shooting, for things like going out to Badwater Death Valley for the Supermoon, or in Antelope Canyon; storm shooting; or out here on the Vegas Strip. The 5D Mark III really works awesome. For the Badwater shoot (more for the weird landscape at max moon light), I had no noise issues until I got up to 6400 ISO. Shooting in a decent 3 am "dust storm" (ok, it was breezy and dusty), I was able to pull off enough good shots at reasonably short exposure times at ISO 1600 - 3200.
The AF is definitely a winner. I tend to mix in some automotive and railroad shooting, so thats a pleasure. Especially railroad stuff, where I my focus in the landscape is a moving locomotive.
Yep I am happy - it fits my needs. And I will bring mine out to the Fling.
As to the Nikon D800 series. Serious applause there. If anything, I hope it brings some of the Medium Format gear down to reachable price ranges. Not sure its a huge advantage - its really optimum for top Nikon lenses at optimum apertures, but otherwise seems to fall into a range that Canon can reach with its optimum lenses. I'm running a Zeiss 21mm and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II, I'm already doing fairly well in sharpness, so I'll wait for Canon to release something to round out the resolution maybe next year. And maybe by that time I'll have upgraded from my four-year old Alienware 17" laptop so I can handle 75 Mb RAWs in Adobe Bloatware.
Around the time of release, I think most estimated it to be about 2/3 stop better in Raw, and of course it has a very good onboard NR/distortion fix engine in jpeg. I have not seen lab measurements, but I am sure they are not far off. I think if you are buying it to upgrade IQ from the Mark II, its not a big jump. But what it has is a very good AF system, very good weather-sealing, the custom stuff, and all the other stuff that updates the 5D to 2012 feature sets.