Camera Labs

Hi,
A few weeks ago i picked up the 5dm2 from ebay for 1850$ brand new. Now i have the chance to sell it at the same price, but i'm not much sure what to do. I hear rumors, which are most likely reality, about the nikon d600. It would be sold at the same price or even lower, but will come with much better specifications.
Is the 5dm2's technology, performance and IQ outdated already?
I know the pentax k-5 has a better sensor than the 5dm2 and it is a cropped sensor.
I don't own expensive canon glass, and i'm not loyal to any camera brand.
What do you say, risk 50-100$ if i decide to repurchase the same camera, in case the price goes higher, or invest in canon lenses and be stuck with the 5dm2.
I have a feeling that the new aps-c cameras will match and exceed the IQ of the 5dm2 at a much lower price, and i'll feel bad because i was an idiot who pruchased such an old camera (2008-9 released)...
BTW i know it's the photographer who makes the pictures look good, but the tools get better every day...
What do you folks think? I'd appreciate your opinions.

As you said, the tools get better every day but the question you probably need to ask yourself is whether you'll make use of the benefits of those improvements or not.

I don't think the 5D Mk II is outdated in terms of IQ or noise performance, I just think that the newer generation is even better. My reservation about it is the AF. Even if/when APS-C starts to match and exceed the 5D Mk II, you may need to invest in the best lenses and go pixel peeping to really notice and that "grass is greener" syndrome will always apply almost no matter what you buy.

I'm not saying this bit as advice but with a set amount of money, I'd be more likely to take the 7D over the 5D Mk II or even the Mk III because the APS-C sensor tends to suit my subject matter better plus the 7D's AF is in my view superior to that of the 5D Mk II.

I think the 5D Mk II is still relevant today, it's just not for me.

_________________
Bodies: Canon EOS 550D w/ Magic Lantern
Lenses: Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX f/2.8, Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Accessories: YongNuo Speedlite YN-468 Flash, Neewer Macro LED Ring Light, Meike Battery Grip, YongNuo RF-602 Wireless Flash Trigger & Receiver YongNuo WR-128 Wireless Remote Control

I'll deal with the easy part first. Don't compare crop sensors with full frame *if you need full frame*. Why might you need full frame? To me, the greatest advantage is not the MP count or light collection ability. It is quite simply when combined with a fast prime, you can achieve shallow depth of field that crop sensor cameras will have a hard time getting close to. If you need that, it doesn't matter if crop sensors might be better in other ways. If you don't need that, do you even need a full frame camera?

The hard part, how does the relatively old 5D2 compare against the speculated D600? Of course the latter should be able to beat it in every way, and may be affordable. But how long can you afford to wait for a rumour to turn to announcement, then wait some more before they're in the shops?

The 5D2 certainly could be improved in many areas, which are largely addressed with the much more expensive mk3. But on the plus side, the 5D2 is well known in what it can do and its limitations. Is it enough or not? That's down to the photographer's needs.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

One thing to realize is the 5D2 is not the same camera it was when it was first announce.
Canon surprised everyone by going in the firmware and adding features in addition to modifications in order to improve the camera based upon the customers' needs/desires.

So with the new firmware, the camera is a lot better today than it was initially released.

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

Before the 5dm2 i owned a Xsi-450d(still have it) I actually purchased it because it was quite a good deal. I didn't know what i was getting in with FF. I must say i like the wide angle i can get, iso performance, especially the dynamic range, which i thing is by far the most important in a well composed/lit image to me. I can't say much on the AF performance because i only have manual lenses and the 100mm macro usm which is quite slow, compares to my 55-250 when zoomed in focus speed.
Let me put the question this way:
An 60's Mercedes S class is awesome! A new 2012 Mercedes is even better, and they both sell at the same price. Which one do you pick? - The new model most likely.
I wouldn't mind if i had to wait two more months or even four for the new Nikon. It should have even better dynamic range than the 5dm2, much more sophisticated AF, better FPS, and it can even take crop sensor lenses.
But if i stay with the 5dm2 at the moment i would spend another 4k$ on canon mount lenses, and basically im stuck with canon.
I think if i sell the 5dm2, I can repurchase it for roughly the same price 100$ +/- if the new cameras are not any better, but if they are much better there's not much i could do.
The most tempting thing is that with the 5dm2 there is always a desire to upgrade to a newer camera body, but with the m3, or whatever is the newest on Nikon's, or Pentax's side, you now you have the latest technology. The same thing happens when you buy a new PC, maybe you don't need the extra MHzs at all, but at least you know you have them...
I really have know idea what to do... I'll let you know on Monday if I sold it or not

Er, well... since the 5D II was one of the best DSLRs around till a few months ago, why shouldnt it be enough for you right now then?
Of course there is better cameras overthere. Will a newer body with -most important upgrade I guess- give you better high ISO performance? Very surely, but do you need the best quality at 6400 ISO >?

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

I dont get what you mean. If you sell the 5DmkII you will then get a Nikon but then you are stuck with Nikon and you have to spend 4k on Nikon lenses - and if you think you will save money by getting non-Nikkor lenses or lenses that are meant for crop but compatible with FF nokons, you will wasting the money you spend on the FF nikon.

And most of all, some lenses, although compatible, lose AF ability.

If you arent loyal to a Camera brand, by getting a D600, it will mean you have to be loyal for a while until you get a new camera and then you need to sell your lenses if you change brands again.

My only criticism of 5DmkII is the AF - other than that, you are pretty much using a top of the line camera. Theres nothing wrong with a 5DII today - In fact people are still buying MKII over the MKIII because its cheaper and for some photographers, they dont need the upgrades.

As for going to Nikon, well, just be prepared to spend money on good lenses because the same argument about Canon applies to Nikon, good glass means good photos - especially on FF.... Dynamic range is also reliant on the lenses too you know, so you can have a great D600 but if you have a poor lens on the end, I wouldnt have bothered in the first place. Some of the best photos Ive seen in my lifetime have come from VERY old bodies with 4MP and they are shaper than some of the pictures I take - purely from the quality of glass.

You just has to ask yourself, is FF really what you want? Is the extra features worth the money? and WILL you use it? I have a family member who has a 1DX... no idea how to use it - I had to set it for him so its mostly automated for him - and then he sticks a 18-55mm lens on it *facepalm* and then he wonders why I "still" use a film camera and a 7D.... I should upgrade to a 1DX like him... I would love to, if I could afford it - and even if I did, Id be buying a 5Dmk3 with white lenses and primes... New doesnt always mean better.

_________________
1) Olympus OM1 [Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8]
2) Pentax MZ-60 [Sigma 28-90 & 100-300]
3) Canon 7D [EF-S 15-85 & 70-200mm f/4 IS]

Leo's Flickr Page

I don't know if FF is what i want. I know i like it better than my old Xsi, because it has better DR, IQ etc. APS-C sensors are less demanding and don't need super sharp lenses... which is better, but i will get less shallow depth of field which i would like to have. I would't be using the burst mode, but "maybe" i would need it sometime, and if I do I know I have it. So in the end all that matters to me IQ. 5dm2 shows noise in the shadows area even at low ISO, but almost all Nikon cameras don't.
You also say you would be buying the M3 not M2, any reason why?

The super pixel packed DSLRs these days need quite sharp lenses to produce sharp photos, it's all about the size of the pixels. The smaller the pixel, the sharper the lenses need to be. And you can imagine the 5D II has quite large pixels, so it doesnt need that a demanding lens as the other 18mp Canons need.
More importantly though is that the lens you put on the 5D is sharp over the whole frame; an EF lens on a EF-s body cuts the edges off the frame, on a FF body those edges with usually less sharpness are still there (which also applies for vignetting of course).

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

While considering full-frame, I elected to purchase an original 5D. I was already using a 40D and two 7D cameras at the time, both models having modern features not present on the older 5D. I could have afforded a 5D Mark II, but spent much time on-line, reading reviews and peeping at pixels shot by others, particularly in the reviews of the 5D and 5D2 at dpreview.com, and decided that the 5D was the better choice for me at that point in time. (late 2011) I love the almost-like-new 5D I purchased. I also love the nice 400mm 5.6L lens and 580EX II I was able to purchase soon afterward with the money I did not spend on a 5D2.

For that matter, when I bought my 40D, it had already been superseded in its class (semi-pro cropped-frame sensor) by the 50D and 7D.

To be clear, I am not recommending anyone actually purchase a classic, original 5D. The LCD is primitive, and there is no live view. Acquiring a 5D2 today, however, because it fulfills one's carefully considered expectations, is analogous to what I did last autumn, in buying a 5D, or what I did the previous year in buying a 40D.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Thank you all for your responses, you helped me make up my decision, although you didn't really understand my question.

Smart choice! You saved yourself 1600$.
If I was in for a FF and didn't really care about sensor performance, I would go for the 5d m1 too.
But since I'm paying + 1000$ on top of a used 5d m1 I don't want to be throwing away my money down the drain.
Canon is years behind Nikon's and Sony's sensors. 5dm2 simply can't compete with even the new DX cameras.
Why spend 2000$ for something i can get for 1000$...
Most of you guys sound like, -Why not get the Canon 1d, it was a pro body camera it sold for 10k$, and was perfect for photographers then. True, but now even a 200$ P&S camera performs better and is much cheaper.
Since the rumored d600 is gonna be twice as good as the 5dm2, I will wait for a couple of months. Let's be real, 5dm2 = crappy AF and noise in shadows even at ISO 100...
I really want a good performing FF sensor, because I need the shallow depth of field and IQ.
For now i will just sell my new 5d m2, flashes and third party canon mount lenses, and keep my Xsi with the 100mm macro and kit lens.
When the new Nikon comes out, i will buy the camera + a few pro grade lenses.

Interesting statement. To my knowledge, the 5DII still performs very well with image quality.
Where the 5DII suffers in comparison to the 5DIII for image quality is in low light performance in higher ISO.

I have been absolutely amazed by the quality of the pictures taken with the 5DII.
The main two reasons why I am saving for a mark 3 over the 2 are autofocus and low light performance.

Do you have a link or article that describes a point and shoot that has better image quality than a 5DII?

And while I will agree that Nikon make some great products, I will have to disagree that they are necessarily better than Canon.
An article you might want to check out is Gordon's review of the 5DIII.
In it, he compares the 5DIII to the 5DII and Nikon D800.

Also, I have found that the quality of the lens matters more than the quality of the sensor in the camera.

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

I think we're in need of some clarification here.

To me the main advantage of a big sensor is a big sensor! You get shallow depth of field more easily than a smaller sensor can offer. That has to be the first reason for looking at full frame.

At high ISO, there really isn't a huge difference between 5D2 generation and later generation sensors. They have improved a bit here and there, but not radically so. Just the expected evolution.

Where Canon's sensors lag behind Sony/Nikon at the moment is if you go extreme shadow fishing at low ISO, where Canon hit the noise floor quicker. If you like massive under-exposing at low ISO, then Canon might not be the first choice.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

@Bluedragon, don't imagine that i said it's better than a 5d2, i said 1d!
Put a 100000$ lens on a sensor that can't perform well at ISO 100, it won't do any better.
Canon 5d2 AF is 3 generations old.
Put the same lens on a k-5 and a 5dm2, the k-5 will be better.

I agree with you popo, the FF is good if you want shallow DOF, it will also give you more of the image in focus. Useful for macro photography.
So unless you need that shallow DOF or extreme wide angle, stick with APS-C.
What i was saying is why pay more for the 5dm2 when you can get another camera cheaper, better and more sophisticated...

Misunderstood your statement. I apologize.
That's what I get for posting while exhausted.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System