Used Canon 5D Mark II

blanka said:

I can get the Nikon's out yes with their clearer highlights with less colour-shift, and nicer grain in the shadows, assuming the JPEG slider was not on 50 out of 100.

In 1990 a camera defined the set of lenses and add-ons that you could work with. The film could be chosen independently, and it levelled image quality from a 35$ trowaway to a F5 powerhouse.

Today with the camera you buy the film. You won't be able to change it until you buy a new camera. So IMO you better buy the best film possible, and you can say a D600 to a 5DmkII is like a Velvia 100 to a no-brand generic 100 iso slide film.

Click to expand...

What has film to do with DSLR cameras?

And no, you can't tell what camera brand was used by looking at any photo in this forum. The only way you can do that is if the person posting the photo tells what camera it is, or by looking at the exif data. Look at the Photos Of The Day.

I used my son's Nikon camera to take one of the photos below, and my Canon 7D for the other one. Can you tall my with photo was taken with the Nikon (include the model) and which one with the Canon 7D?

I wouldn't worry about it Mr Moose, he's a fanboy no amount of reasoning will change his mind.

tjgonzo said:

Hey guys. First time starting a thread but, long time follower.
I'm currently in the market to buy a used or possibly refurbished 5D mk II and need to know what type of these to pay attention to when buying a used body.

I'm no professional photography/ cinematographer but, at the same time I have been using high end prosumer cameras (Canon GL2, Sony HDR cameras) for various work over the last couple of years so I am familiar with how cameras work. I.E. f-stop, ISO, & iris. My main use of this camera would be to have a personal camera to shot pictures of family trips, hikes and other outdoor activities and also to film shorts & adverts for my church. Possibly short films with friends (for rec purposes only).

So I just need to know what to look for when looking at eBay/ Craigslist.
Also, in your guys' opinions: what lenses should look at for my uses?
(BTW, I would be recording all audio externally when using the camera for video)
Thanks,
Taylor

Click to expand...

Not sure if anybody has said this yet but just keep an eye out on Canon's website. Many people don't know but at times, Canon offers deals on their refurbed camera bodies. I myself nabbed a MKII for $1310 (plus $100 in shipping and taxes). As it is, I think Canon sells the refurbed body for either $1500 or $1700. Nevertheless, just keep an eye out on Canon's refurbed deals. I don't think anything beats buying from Canon's refurbed stores because one its usually cheaper than what people sell their bodies for, two, its a "technically" a new camera but just repackaged and three, you have a 60 or 90 day (either one) warrenty on the camera.

Good luck! You won't regret the MKII at all. Went from a T3 to a MKII and its been THE BEST choice I've made yet.

Kebabselector said:

I wouldn't worry about it Mr Moose, he's a fanboy no amount of reasoning will change his mind.

Click to expand...

Got it.

Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, and I would not mind using one brand or the other. Since both companies compete with each other, it's almost impossible for one to be on top very long, and the only way to keep up with the latest technology is by buying the newest Canon and Nikon pro camera on the market.

Now, there is no denying that the first FF camera, the 5D, even as a relic is capable of amazing IQ. I know some Nikon users who still hold on to their beloved 5Dc, because back then that was the only FF camera so lots of photographers bought this camera.
-------

Kebabselector said:

I wouldn't worry about it Mr Moose, he's a fanboy no amount of reasoning will change his mind.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fanboy. I'm a photographer with a science degree not taking any commercial talk crap. We work on architectural shots demanding the most of any camera, and at the moment de D800(E) is the best digital tool ever made. If Canon beats it next time, we will switch over as our goal is to deliver the best in the market. But I have hard feelings that is gonna happen soon. Sorry Canon, but you blew it this round (5d mkIII/6D/650D). Loved your 5D and 1Ds back in the days though.

@Moose
The portrait picture is the Nikon, the landscape the Canon (if they are both modern generation camera's). You do make it hard with the small size and all that fancy mudding around the edges. I look at the color characteristics of the shadows. The my-called "Nikon" has a bad white balance though, so it might mess things up.

Have u had any left side focus issues with your D800?

blanka said:

We work on architectural shots demanding the most of any camera, and at the moment de D800(E) is the best digital tool ever made. If Canon beats it next time, we will switch over as our goal is to deliver the best in the market. But I have hard feelings that is gonna happen soon. Sorry Canon, but you blew it this round (5d mkIII/6D/650D). Loved your 5D and 1Ds back in the days though.

Click to expand...

blanka said:

I'm not a fanboy.

Click to expand...

blanka said:

I would not worry much about its AF then, especially when you want it for travel (where MF is perfect as well).

Click to expand...

...lol

Because Nikon makes one body designed almost specifically for your specific type of photography, which covers a very narrow area as far as equipment requirements are concerned, you say the entire Nikon range is better than Canon? And suggesting not worrying about any AF issues since you can focus manually? Ha!

blanka said:

I'm not a fanboy. I'm a photographer with a science degree not taking any commercial talk crap. We work on architectural shots demanding the most of any camera, and at the moment de D800(E) is the best digital tool ever made. If Canon beats it next time, we will switch over as our goal is to deliver the best in the market. But I have hard feelings that is gonna happen soon. Sorry Canon, but you blew it this round (5d mkIII/6D/650D). Loved your 5D and 1Ds back in the days though.

@Moose
The portrait picture is the Nikon, the landscape the Canon (if they are both modern generation camera's). You do make it hard with the small size and all that fancy mudding around the edges. I look at the color characteristics of the shadows. The my-called "Nikon" has a bad white balance though, so it might mess things up.

Click to expand...

Both taken with a Canon 7D.

And I apologize if I seem to be mean to you in this forum. But I was trying to prove a point as follows: you nor anybody else can tell what camera brand is used by just looking at the photos posted at this or any other forum. The only way one can tell if the photo is posted with its exif data, or if the camera is posted along the poster's signature.

By the way, this sort of "entry-level into FF camera" is beating the snout out of most Nikon cameras (and even other Canon models) on the market right now. Canon is having a hard time keeping with demand for it. Nikon will have to top this one soon, so lets hope that the Nikon offering will top the 6D with a better camera and sensor, and price.

FF body for $1,500
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414619,00.asp

AlaskaMoose said:

FF body for $1,500
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414619,00.asp

Click to expand...

It is a stunning camera. Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK recently compared both the 6D and D600 - both scored well, with the D600 just a bit better in some aspects.

Still for me, there was only one winner as I've got a lot of Canon kit already. The PCmag review does list a few of the supposed cons with the 6d:

• Not the fastest camera on the block - it's decent to be honest, better than the 5D MKII which I sold to fund it
  
• Viewfinder only offers 97 percent coverage - I've not found this to be a problem
• Not compatible with EF-S lenses - not an issue for me.
• GPS saps battery life - yeah this is the shocker, GPS drains a battery (actually it doesn't if you turn it off)
• No flash - Not an issue for me.
• Slow focus during video recording - I bought it for pictures, video is a 'bonus' feature
• No PC Sync socket - People still use PC connections? If your into studio flash trigger are now the norm.

Kebabselector said:

It is a stunning camera. Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK recently compared both the 6D and D600 - both scored well, with the D600 just a bit better in some aspects.

Still for me, there was only one winner as I've got a lot of Canon kit already. The PCmag review does list a few of the supposed cons with the 6d:

• Not the fastest camera on the block - it's decent to be honest, better than the 5D MKII which I sold to fund it
  
• Viewfinder only offers 97 percent coverage - I've not found this to be a problem
• Not compatible with EF-S lenses - not an issue for me.
• GPS saps battery life - yeah this is the shocker, GPS drains a battery (actually it doesn't if you turn it off)
• No flash - Not an issue for me.
• Slow focus during video recording - I bought it for pictures, video is a 'bonus' feature
• No PC Sync socket - People still use PC connections? If your into studio flash trigger are now the norm.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen on "youtube" some intensive tests performed with both the D600 and the 6D. The D600 has an advantage over the 6D relating to tracking moving subjects, and also has a higher video resolution. But the 6D's high ISO capabilities are a lot greater (almost double the D600).

Also, the D600 does better than the 6D when focusing on a small area (like a black cross in a gray background) in the darkness. And the reason for this is as follows: the D600 has a focus-assist beam, while the 6D does not. But there is a catch...If you turn the D600 focus-assist beam, it does not focus any faster than the 6D. Also, if you mount a Canon flash and use the beam from the flash to help the 6D focus, then it does just as well as the D600.

For added features, the D600 has a lot more of these than the 6D. But at the moment the 6D is outselling a lot of the pro Canon and Nikon cameras, perhaps because many vendors are offering huge discounts (maybe buyers are using their tax returns to buy cameras?) I have seen the price of the 6D as low as $1,400 already.

Kebabselector said:

It is a stunning camera. Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK recently compared both the 6D and D600 - both scored well, with the D600 just a bit better in some aspects.

Click to expand...

To me the main differentiator is the beefier AF module that Nikon chose to include, something that can really make a difference in the daily use of the camera. And even though currently Nikon does have an edge in terms of sensors (just like Canon did until roughly the D3 came along), I don't think it's enough to make most people want to switch. Plus, these difference often show only if you really push the cameras. In my opinion, the biggest competition for both are mirrorless cameras. I'll probably eventually switch away to Fuji's X-mount, although I want to get my feet wet with a X100s.

OreoCookie said:

To me the main differentiator is the beefier AF module that Nikon chose to include, something that can really make a difference in the daily use of the camera. And even though currently Nikon does have an edge in terms of sensors (just like Canon did until roughly the D3 came along), I don't think it's enough to make most people want to switch. Plus, these difference often show only if you really push the cameras. In my opinion, the biggest competition for both are mirrorless cameras. I'll probably eventually switch away to Fuji's X-mount, although I want to get my feet wet with a X100s.

Click to expand...

Yes, the AF module on the D600 fells stronger than the 6D's.

I have read of numerous D600 users who have sent their cameras to Nikon for cleaning the sensor. Supposedly something inside the camera throws very small oil droplets on the sensor (this is not a rumor). But I imagine that Nikon will resolve that issue very soon.

AlaskaMoose said:

Yes, the AF module on the D600 fells stronger than the 6D's.

Click to expand...

Since it uses a modification of the AF system I use (I have a D7000), I know for a fact that it is very capable, and it is probably the thing I noticed the most after upgrading from a D80 (11 point, 1 cross-type). It allowed me to switch from focus & recompose to using off-center AF points.

AlaskaMoose said:

I have read of numerous D600 users who have sent their cameras to Nikon for cleaning the sensor. Supposedly something inside the camera throws very small oil droplets on the sensor (this is not a rumor). But I imagine that Nikon will resolve that issue very soon.

Click to expand...

I have seen reports along those lines, too, but I don't know how wide-spread the issue actually is. However, that's something Nikon will fix after getting the production of the 600D running smoothly.

OreoCookie said:

I have seen reports along those lines, too, but I don't know how wide-spread the issue actually is. However, that's something Nikon will fix after getting the production of the 600D running smoothly.

Click to expand...

From what I've read it appears after a few thousand images, so people are getting them cleaned by Nikon and for some it's reappearing.

FWIW, I have used Canons since the mid 1970's. I gravitated to them and have remained with them because of their extremely high level of accuracy in their lenses. Being an old film guy, I am almost always entertained by discussions of "full frame" vs (crippled) crop. Everything has always been full frame in the world of photography until quite recently with the advent of digital photography.

I personally use a Canon 5DII (as well as 1DIII, and 5DIII), eleven Canon lenses, and numerous Canon flashes and point and shoots like the - G1X, S95, G10s, etc. My film equipment is likewise Canon - A1s, motor drives, all Canon prime lenses. I have been at this for awhile.

My personal recommendation is to concur with the 5DII choice and would seek a Canon factory refurb if I were the OP. I also echo the recommendation above for the 24-105 Canon lens. That one, in my humble opinion, would be my only lens if I could have but one. I even used it to shoot this frame: http://imaginethatimages.zenfolio.com/p492561865/h15aa653#h15aa653

wolfpuppies3,

In the "youtube" video I watched where both the Nikon D600 and the Canon 6D were tested, the person testing these cameras added the 5DIII as per request from viewers. He only added toward the end to show how superior to the other two cameras it is when recording videos. Both the D600 and the 6D showed aliasing and moire, while the same video taken with the 5DIII was completely clean.

By the way, I plan to buy a refurbished 5DII when Canon lowers the price below $1,700. That said, those who are interested on using the highest ISO, right now nothing can touch the 6D, which is somewhere around 2-stops better than the D600 at their highest ISO speeds.

AlaskaMoose said:

But the 6D's high ISO capabilities are a lot greater (almost double the D600).

Click to expand...

WOW, Canon adds a bunch of INSANE iso's on the DIAL.
Sorry, but the D600 is the second best high-iso camera ever, after the D3S if you look at the ISO's that are truly great image quality, not the insane ones. 800-3200 iso on the D600 is astonishing.

The 6D is seriously good in high iso, but the nature is difference. Signal/noise is comparable, the 6D is better in D-range at the higher isos (>3200), the D600 is much better in D-range in 100-800 iso, the D600 is better in color rendition in the whole range and has more detail. Also Nikon is less harsh with in-camera pixel-polish of the RAW files. Looks noisier, but Canon destroys more detail in camera. I'm no fan of the DIGIC approach. So if you are interested in 12800-51200 iso, grab the 6D, if 100-3200 is your playing field, take the D600. 6400 iso winner depends on interest in colour accuracy or d-range, but does not differ much.

AlaskaMoose....great photo's btw. What extra precautions do you have to do shooting during extreme cold temps up in Alaska? Does your camera ever freeze up or moisture isses etc.

Thanks.

dmax35 said:

AlaskaMoose....great photo's btw. What extra precautions do you have to do shooting during extreme cold temps up in Alaska? Does your camera ever freeze up or moisture isses etc.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

When the temperature drops below -20 or so, it's just too uncomfortable to be outdoors for long periods of time, so I usually have a vehicle with the motor running somewhere near. Most times I am at the local dog sled races when the temperature is from perhaps 30 degrees to -20 F.

Since in the interior of Alaska is very dry, it does not take very long for the camera and lens to dry once I get inside my truck where is warm. But there are precautions some people take:

a. Place the camera in the camera bag, or inside a plastic bag one can twist and seal the opening to keep air out

b. when you come home, leave the camera in the bag until both the bag and camera gradually warm to room temperature

c. Keep an extra battery in your coat pocket, next to your body

blanka said:

WOW, Canon adds a bunch of INSANE iso's on the DIAL.
Sorry, but the D600 is the second best high-iso camera ever, after the D3S if you look at the ISO's that are truly great image quality, not the insane ones. 800-3200 iso on the D600 is astonishing.

The 6D is seriously good in high iso, but the nature is difference. Signal/noise is comparable, the 6D is better in D-range at the higher isos (>3200), the D600 is much better in D-range in 100-800 iso, the D600 is better in color rendition in the whole range and has more detail. Also Nikon is less harsh with in-camera pixel-polish of the RAW files. Looks noisier, but Canon destroys more detail in camera. I'm no fan of the DIGIC approach. So if you are interested in 12800-51200 iso, grab the 6D, if 100-3200 is your playing field, take the D600. 6400 iso winner depends on interest in colour accuracy or d-range, but does not differ much.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9HlxWqcG5Y

Sorry, but for the money I would buy a 6D, and maybe that's why the 6D is so hot on the market at the moment. But for video alone, the D600 nor the 6D can even touch the 5DIII.

OreoCookie said:

Honestly, I'm not sure whether the 5D Mark II is such a good fit for you. According to your post, you have a good idea which body to get, but no idea which lenses are suitable. I don't mean to be rude, but this is a typical beginner's mistake, if you invest in a dslr, you should invest in lenses first and a body second.....

Click to expand...

I agree. It's a red flag. When I see a person wanting a $1,000 body that has no list of "favorite" lenses.

OK for your use, sports, the #1 "must have" is the 70-200 f/2.8. You say it costs to much. The back off on the $1,500 buy and buy a used 20D for $180. No one who sees the photos will know you are using a $180 body but the LENS will make the shot.
If you are shooting movies thae buy a few primes, a 35mm, a 50 and a 100. Get the f/1.8 versions. Why? The worst thing you can do is zoom while the camera is on, unless you are an expert who has a good reason for it, zooming is the mark of a "home movie" You do the jumps with CUTS. You want the primes for their shallow focus DOF. Also the big thing with cinema is "follow focus" so you need good manual focus ability if you shoot motion. You can't use auto focus. It looks horrible.

In fact the used Rebel is a very good idea. Put the budget into the lens.

You can always tell the beginners they have a f/5.6 zoom on a very expensive SLR body. That is the wrong way around.

AlaskaMoose said:

What has film to do with DSLR cameras?

And no, you can't tell what camera brand was used by looking at any photo in this forum. The only way you can do that is if the person posting the photo tells what camera it is, or by looking at the exif data. Look at the Photos Of The Day.

Click to expand...

You are right about that. You just can't tell. The SLR body makes so little difference to the end image. You would think a $1,700 body would beat a $180 used D20 but such is not the case unless you set up a pathological test.

But you can see in a minute the effect of the expensive optics. The big, expensive 200 f/2.8 zoom will get different shots then the cheeper f/5.6 lens. Not only does it allow a faster shutter and lower ISO but the depth of field can be controlled

Almost all photos now days are viewed on a screen. Almost no one makes large paper prints. Very few screen have more than 3 megapixel. Even this 27" iMac is still about 3MP. So to older 8MP SLR is already over kill.

If you really ARE doing fine art photos and makinghuge prints WHY in the world are you even thinking about a small format SLR? Go medium or large format. Thos bigger format are actually less expensive. And SLR is for action.

AlaskaMoose said:

What has film to do with DSLR cameras?

And no, you can't tell what camera brand was used by looking at any photo in this forum. The only way you can do that is if the person posting the photo tells what camera it is, or by looking at the exif data. Look at the Photos Of The Day.

I used my son's Nikon camera to take one of the photos below, and my Canon 7D for the other one. Can you tall my with photo was taken with the Nikon (include the model) and which one with the Canon 7D?
Image

Image

Click to expand...

Top picture with the Nikon and the bottom with the Canon?

Arcsylver said:

Top picture with the Nikon and the bottom with the Canon?

Click to expand...

Both shot with a Canon 7D and a 70-200mm f/4Ln (RAW and PP with CS5). I was trying to make a point for Blanka to understand that it's almost impossible to tell what camera brand is used by looking at photos posted in this and other forums.