If you found this recently, finishing reading my comment Get a 5D mark III and get an SD card and a CF card, and a decent EF lens (pref one with IS) and google Magic Lantern, find the forums, and find the most recent version for Danne's build. You will have a gorgeous Full frame RAW video camera, and with a little Post process you can even make clean 4k at insane bitrates and clarity. The only limiting factor is the cards write speeds, and the need for an external monitor ( like any good Vid camera). Cards are easily available for great prices, especially Komputerbay. With this you can have a cinema grade film camera, for little to no money, and with a wide range of glass it can use. For more examples to the quality ( mind you with youtubes compression) then search for 5D3 5.7k or 5D3 UHD RAW for video samples
It's not just you, but it's really just one of many features you need. For example, if the camera doesn't have a good AF system, it won't be useful for wildlife. If the controls are terrible, you'll be stuck with automatic settings. There's a lot more than image quality.
Nice review, though I can tell you're not a video guy. The iii has massive improvements that are essential for any DP. First up, almost zero moire and aliasing issues (this IS noticeable). Secondly, timecode. Thirdly the HDMI output sends a 4:2:2 colour-space video to a recorder like the Ninja, which is broadcast quality, and accepted by all broadcasters. The Sony's you mention do not offer decent enough quality video, and have awful moire issues. Video cameras may have 'caught up', but are massively over-priced for the average user. The C300 is probably the next step up from the 5D (I own one, it's great), but that'll cost you about £11k compared to the iii's £2k. The ii (which i've used to death), is unbearable for video. 12 minute limit is yuck, no clean HDMI out, AWFUL moire (see my venice at night video), and no 1080p Raw ability with Magic lantern. You're an awesome photo guy, but I'd leave the video advice to us DPs ;) BUY A iii FOR VIDEO.
I don't have a video for it, though I might in the future. I do cover it in Chapter 10 of my book, Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description).
I found this a cool review. The price changes from the time of recording to now. The 32GB UDMA 7 CF card you mentioned was over $200 at time of recording and is $30 currently. The camera itself is around $600 gently used now. That's just crazy!
I use the thumb controller, but I think you have to turn it on to control the AF points... Set it on the C.FN2:Disp./Operation menu, Custom Controls, and then the setting in the lower-right corner. Then you can move the AF point around with the joystick; it's pretty quick.
Check chapter 6 of my book for a complete discussion of portrait equipment (link in the description). For me, I'm all about the 70-200 f2.8 zoom. Being able to quickly zoom from a body to a headshot is really important. Re: non-L lenses, that would only be an issue if you were using JPG, and I've always shot raw. Fringing isn't a top priority when I choose a lens--it's more about sharpness, focusing speed, build quality, weight, handling, etc. but then again, I've never had a problem with it.
Raw image quality is indistinguishable at ISO 25,000 and below, according to both my own tests (which included side-by-side examination by a panel of pros) and tests from organizations such as DXO. I do talk about the vastly superior focusing speed of the 5D Mark III and specifically recommend it for wedding photographers, so we agree on that point... you make it sound like I think the cameras are identical in every way; that's definitely not the case.
The biggest factor is going to be the types of photography you plan to do. If you're doing landscapes or portraits, get the 5D2. If you're shooting action, you should spring for the 5D3. Like the 5D2, the 6D's continuous focusing system is really only useful on the center point, so you're limited when composing action shots. However, it has some nice gadgets, like Wi-Fi and GPS. Anyway, if you mention what your goals are, I can provide better recommendations.
I don't think we disagree. I specifically say the 5D3's video quality has some technical advantages over the 5D2's, but explain that depending on the type of work you do you might very well be better of spending the extra cash on lighting, sound, etc. The fact is many or most will never notice the video quality improvement.
Get the Mark II, used if you can find it. If you said you were doing wildlife and sports, I'd push you to a 7D. The Mark II is definitely the better choice for portraits, and the AF system is fine for that. You'll finally take advantage of your 24-70. You might also grab a 70-200 f2.8; Tamron makes a $750 model. BTW, check Chapter 6 in Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description) for more information about portraits and portrait equipment (including studio lighting).
Yes, but the 7D has a higher pixel density. The 7D has 18 megapixels in that 1.6X crop, whereas the 5D Mark III has only about 14 megapixels in that area. So, for less money, you get more pixels... if you're definitely going to be cropping, which you pretty much are with wildlife.
Yeah, we've tried hand-held video for quick on-location shoots, and it's basically not doable without a large and expensive shoulder mount... and at that point, it would be easier to setup a tripod.
Well, it's confusing because it's not all about megapixels. Canon had been advertising two stops cleaner images, so images taken at ISO 1600 on a 5D Mark III would look like images taken at ISO 400 on a 5D Mark II. That wasn't true when shooting RAW files, and it frustrated and/or confused many buyers.
The only downside to the 6D is that Magic Lantern isn't yet available, and many serious video people rely on Magic Lantern. Otherwise the 6D is better than the 5D2 in every way, in my opinion... though some people say it has worse moire in video than the 5D2, I haven't gotten that far in my testing. I should have the test video up this week, so stay tuned.
Either one is a good start. I usually push wildlife photographers towards canon, and commercial photographers towards Nikon, but for most types of photography it really won't make any difference. Find a good deal on a kit (check ebay), buy it, and get started. It's more about technique than gear.
Check out the Black Magic Cinema Camera. It takes Canon lenses, costs the same as the 5D3, and if you're a sticker for video quality, it's far, far better. It's also much more usable, because it's designed for video. On Amazon right now, the 5D3 is 63% more expensive than the 6D.
I use a Sennheiser EW112PG3-A wired right into the camera if it's just one person. If it's two people, I wire the mics into a Zoom H4N and sync the audio in post.
Yeah, check my other videos--there's a more recent one that compares the 6D, 5D2, and 5D3. I generally prefer the 6D over the 5D2, though used 5D2s are going for $1200 now, which is a great deal.
If you're doing videos like I do, just go with the cheaper camera and don't wear striped shirts. With the Mark 3 costing twice the 6D or Mark 2, you'd better carefully assess just how much you're willing to pay to reduce moire. Still, the Mark 3 is fairly awful with moire compared to film-first video cameras, so "none of the above" is the right choice if you care about moire. I have a moire test of the 6D, 5D2, and 5D3 coming next week.
People do it all the time and save themselves hundreds or thousands of dollars. It's good practice to pick a seller that allows returns, just to be safe. If the camera isn't in the condition advertised, ebay has a process to resolve it so you don't get screwed.
If it's for video, get a video camera. Check out the Black Magic cameras, too. Modern video cameras are better at video than the DSLRs. There was a time period there when DSLRs were superior (when the 5D Mark II was new), but that time has passed.
Great reviews on the Canon 5D MkIII Tony, it's refreshing to hear such open and unbiased opinions. I own 2 5D MkII's and was thinking about upgrading to the MkIII but after watching this video, the money is staying in the bank. Sure more cross type focus points would be a help, but it's a lot of money to spend on the only feature I think would be of any benefit to me. I think I'll wait until the MkIV is launched. Thanks from me and my bank manager.
I've shot weddings with both cameras, for the record. My tests, and DxOs, show no significant difference in image quality below ISO 50,000. But yes, I totally agree that the 5D3's focusing is far superior and that makes a huge difference for wedding photographers, which is why you and I both recommend the 5D3 for pro wedding photogs.
No, I really don't use the dual card slots. I've never had a card fail, though. I suppose if I had just one failure, I'd probably change my mind. I have had cameras fail, though, so if I were you, I'd spend the extra money on a backup body.
I'm not a fan of the A99. If you're a Stunning Digital Photography reader, check the Files tab for the DSLR Camera Buying Guide, because I have a comparison of their focusing systems in there, and a pretty detailed discussion of Sony as a system overall.
Well, I don't know your shooting style, so I really can't say. Sounds like you have a good setup. You seem to prefer primes to zooms, and your 135 f1/2 is already an awesome portrait lens, so maybe you don't even need the 70-200. Maybe you don't need to upgrade at all. The question is, how is your current gear failing or frustrating you? How can your money best be spent to improve your results? Maybe it's on lighting or software...
OK, so take the challenge-which scenes were filmed with which body? I'll agree that the 5D3 wins hands-down at high ISOs, and I always make a point of grabbing it when we're shooting at night.
yes, actually, the cheapest I can find now is $1350. However, it's a seller's market during the Christmas season, so I suspect they all got bought up. I bet in a month you'll see them for even cheaper, as people who upgraded to a 5D mark III sell their old body.
Hi, Lou. I have another video comparing the 7D to most of the other Canon cameras; you might watch that. I'm not sure what body you're using now, but you probably wouldn't see a big improvement going to the 7D. I think you'd have to spring for a 6D to see a real improvement in indoor volleyball... but that other video has lots of good detail. Hope that helps!
You can put it against consumer camera in some conditions and be hard to spot a difference, but If you used 5D2 on it's edge, when you try 5D3, you will see the vast difference in picture quality, moire, aliasing, color rendition, high ISO, and especially NLE processing and color correction.
Well, check Chapter 6 in my book Stunning Digital Photography for detailed information about portrait equipment, techniques, and lighting (link in the description). Yeah, I think a 70-200 f/2.8 is an absolute necessity, and Tamron, Sigma, and Canon make different versions at different price points. The 85 f/1.2 and f/1.8 are nice, too, but not as practical in the real world because you can't easily zoom between headshots and full body shots, and the short focal length isn't ideal.
Good question, and I haven't seen anyone review the D800's capabilities at night. However, I'd steer you towards the Canon 6D. I have a review coming out next week, but for night photography, the 6D is even better than the 5D3.
I specifically recommend the 5D Mark III for professional wedding photographers, so we agree, and I don't understand your tone... BTW, the high ISO performance is identical between the two cameras at any respectable ISO, but the focusing system makes a huge difference.
Well, I'm a photographer but only a part-time videographer. "Massive" upgrade seems like an overstatement, though. Neither camera is particularly good with moire, but for my own purposes, moire really isn't a problem. I think the only way to get a "massive" upgrade is to upgrade to a real video camera.
It's my main walking around lens, mostly because Canon's 24-70 doesn't have IS. The 24-105 isn't that sharp, but I do a lot of handheld work where I need IS. I wouldn't buy both the 24-70 and 24-105. Instead, grab one or the other and get a 70-200 f/2.8. Tamron, Sigma, and Canon make versions at different price points, starting at $750, and there's no replacement for that shallow depth-of-field you get at 200mm and f/2.8.
Definitely get an f/2.8 instead of the f/4--the extra stop makes a big difference. Instead of the Canons, I'd recommend the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD, $1249. Great lens, and it has IS in your price range.
Yeah, that's an awesome price for the 5D3! The 6D is amazing, too. The only real advantage of the 5D3 over the 6D is the focusing system, but it's a pretty huge difference. I have a comparison video that should be out next week, so subscribe and stay tuned...
Yeah, but if you care about image quality, you don't shoot JPG, you shoot raw. Using raw doesn't mean any more work in post. Lightroom converts the raw images automatically with no work from me.
It's tough, because I really need IS/VC on that lens, which is why I use the 24-105. I'd also really like that extra stop, though. I was really excited when Tamron's came out, but I have to say, as nitpicky as it sounds, I can't work with the circular bokeh. I'm not a bokeh snob, but it's so strange that I know I'd have to Photoshop it all out for every picture, and that would just be too time consuming. But for portraits and weddings, you don't really need the IS/VC. Just get the Canon.
Agreed that the 24-105 isn't the greatest lens, but for me at least it's still the best "walking-around", general shooting lens, because I really love IS. I wish Canon would make a 24-70 f2.8 with IS... rumors are we'll see one near the end of the year. I don't like the Tamron version much.
Tony it not the equipment that matters, its the guy taking the shot or person behind the lens. A bad phot will be bad no matter what camera is use or equipment is employed. It converse is also true for good photos.
I'm excited about some new big megapixel camera, too... but there's no announcement yet, or even concrete rumors, and even if there is an announcement, it will be months before the camera is available. So, if you're missing shots because of the 5D2's shortcomings, I wouldn't wait around for a camera that doesn't yet exist.
I buy used cameras whenever I can, and I've shot hundreds of thousands of frames, and I've never had a shutter fail, nor any problem with camera lifetime. I would buy a used 5D Mark II from a reputable buyer on ebay who allows returns, and I wouldn't think twice about it. It's an amazing camera.
On that budget, get the Canon 400mm f/5.6 (but NOT the 100-400, get the prime). It's unbelievably sharp, and it's so good that it's the sole reason I push upcoming wildlife photographers to Canon instead of Nikon--there's no Nikon equivalent. Check Chapter 8 of my book Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description) for more information about wildlife techniques and equipment.
MK3 is hands down better for weddings and where your subjects are moving. and for low light conditions. I have both and I see the difference in post production. Also the dual card slots makes your life easier on the wedding day.
Well, IS is better than not IS, but the IS models are more expensive. Sigma has the cheapest (they call it OS) at $1250. If you don't have OS, you just have to keep your shutter speed fast enough. Refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description). Re: noisy, yeah, that's an issue with dark, live performances, and there's not much you can do about it besides crank the ISO up and tolerate the noise.
Actually, I just finished a comparison between the 7D, 6D, 5D Mark II, and 5D Mark III. The 7D holds up just fine! In good light, you really can't tell the difference between the images.
I'm definitely excited about the raw video... even for the simple videos I do, when I'm outdoors, I'd love to have the extra dynamic range. Maybe in the future once they have a workflow developed around it, it'll change my recommendation... but I suspect that's at least 3-6 months out, and nobody really knows whether it'll be suitable for professional or amateur video until then. But, it's really exciting.
Hard to say. The 5D3 has the same detail in the center of the image as the 1D4, but the 5D3 is full-frame, so if you could get close to animals, you'd have more detail. The 1D4 has more fps, but the 5D3 is smaller and weighs less. Both are good, but I guess I'd take the 5D3.
The more a look and learn I think I'm just going to buy the 1D-X and be done with it. Yep, it's a lot of money but it gets you there in all of the areas I keep thinking about.
Easy, just use a long shutter speed. I do have a tutorial on shutter speed, plus I cover it in detail in Chapter 4 of Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description). The Night Photography chapter (10) covers long exposures with people, including people and objects moving through the frame while the subject is moving.
Nice informations. I actually stayed with the MkII while putting my money in lenses like 24-70 f:2.8 L II + 85 f:1.2 L II + 70-200 f:2.8 IS L II ... and it rocks!
Great review, was thinking a 1DX was next in line for bird photography, just find my 5D mark 111 isn't cutting it for me, wouldnt of thought of the 7D, good advice
Thanks Tony! I use Mark II and was just about to replace it with Mark III. But I had doubts if I really need to pay that price. Your review helped me. I continue with my Mark II and buy some nice glass instead. Great job!
Interesting video especially since I bought a 5D mark III 6 month ago. I see you are using a WLAN SD Card to transfer the pictures on the laptop. Is that working really well (throughput, stability, configuration management) ? Would you suggest a particular brand ? Thanks for your videos and advices... really useful in these times of confinment !! Regards from France !
I have like 8 cameras and I use them all for different things, and some of them are just for fun. Different people have different needs and budgets, so one camera isn't right for everyone.
I bought a Used 5D MK II for $750 on ebay, it hasn't even arrived yet but I think I will go ahead and buy the 6D and use that because it seems the 6D has many of the same features of the 5D MK II plus a better focusing system and better low light performance.
Focusing is definitely far superior on the 5D3. If you're shooting JPG the 5D3 is better in low light, and even in raw files above ISO 50,000 it's better. But no objective tests (including mine) show that the 5D3 is substantially better than the 5D2 at lower ISOs.
Hi Tony,Im so glad I stumbled across you on youtube-I love your straight to the point facts! Ive just ordered your book and so looking forward to receiving it! Greetings & Thanks from the UK!
Tony, I'm so glad I checked out TH-cam and ran across your comparison reviews of the Mark III and Mark II..... I've been hemming and hawing over the two for a while... I'm stepping up from my 50D crop (which I love) and have the 24-105L and 200 2.8L glass. Since I'm not technically a "pro" and I'm not relying on photography for income, you made the decision for me: 5D Mark II. Thank you! I also ordered your book on Amazon. Looking forward! Keep up the great work. Dave in NY
Unless you have really strict requirements for video quality, get a used 5D Mark II and install Magic Lantern... and enjoy all that extra glass you can get with it :)
Managed to snag a mark III for 800 bucks including shipping with a low shutter count. Considering they seem to sell for 1100 plus on eBay that's my kind of deal.
5D2 only goes up to ISO 6,400 in normal mode, only up to ISO 25,600 in expanded mode. Sounds like we're in complete agreement re: 5D3 as a far superior wedding photography camera cf. the 5D2. Thanks again on putting together the polished and fine review. All my best.
📷 Get the Canon 5D Mark III on Amazon: help.tc/5d3 📷
Tony & Chelsea Northrup
Which can I buy lens for Canon 5 d mark 3 camera. Canon 85mm 1.4 or sigma 85mm 1.4
If you found this recently, finishing reading my comment
Get a 5D mark III and get an SD card and a CF card, and a decent EF lens (pref one with IS) and google Magic Lantern, find the forums, and find the most recent version for Danne's build.
You will have a gorgeous Full frame RAW video camera, and with a little Post process you can even make clean 4k at insane bitrates and clarity.
The only limiting factor is the cards write speeds, and the need for an external monitor ( like any good Vid camera).
Cards are easily available for great prices, especially Komputerbay.
With this you can have a cinema grade film camera, for little to no money, and with a wide range of glass it can use.
For more examples to the quality ( mind you with youtubes compression) then search for 5D3 5.7k or 5D3 UHD RAW for video samples
Just check the links in the description!
True, but that's not evident in most conditions, so it depends on how you're shooting and whether those artifacts are worth the extra expense.
It's not just you, but it's really just one of many features you need. For example, if the camera doesn't have a good AF system, it won't be useful for wildlife. If the controls are terrible, you'll be stuck with automatic settings. There's a lot more than image quality.
I'm still shooting on a 5DII in 2018... now that the 5DIII is only about $1300 used I think it might finally be time to upgrade, haha.
Did you get it? Are you happy with it? I'm thinking of getting one used.
i just bought a lightly used 5D3 for $1050 with a really low shutter count of 5300 shots, i think i got it at a bargain
I'm thinking of getting a used mk iii. coming from a 7D it'll be quite an upgrade. Now to buy more glass too lol
@@WhiteRockBoy I some how got a banged up copy (but only 30k shots) for 350 euros :)
I'm using 5D Classic and thinking of upgrading to Mark II, LOL :D
Nice review, though I can tell you're not a video guy.
The iii has massive improvements that are essential for any DP. First up, almost zero moire and aliasing issues (this IS noticeable). Secondly, timecode. Thirdly the HDMI output sends a 4:2:2 colour-space video to a recorder like the Ninja, which is broadcast quality, and accepted by all broadcasters. The Sony's you mention do not offer decent enough quality video, and have awful moire issues. Video cameras may have 'caught up', but are massively over-priced for the average user. The C300 is probably the next step up from the 5D (I own one, it's great), but that'll cost you about £11k compared to the iii's £2k.
The ii (which i've used to death), is unbearable for video. 12 minute limit is yuck, no clean HDMI out, AWFUL moire (see my venice at night video), and no 1080p Raw ability with Magic lantern.
You're an awesome photo guy, but I'd leave the video advice to us DPs ;) BUY A iii FOR VIDEO.
Yes, it's good for instant backups, or for using the eye-fi
I don't have a video for it, though I might in the future. I do cover it in Chapter 10 of my book, Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description).
I found this a cool review. The price changes from the time of recording to now. The 32GB UDMA 7 CF card you mentioned was over $200 at time of recording and is $30 currently. The camera itself is around $600 gently used now. That's just crazy!
I use the thumb controller, but I think you have to turn it on to control the AF points... Set it on the C.FN2:Disp./Operation menu, Custom Controls, and then the setting in the lower-right corner. Then you can move the AF point around with the joystick; it's pretty quick.
Check chapter 6 of my book for a complete discussion of portrait equipment (link in the description). For me, I'm all about the 70-200 f2.8 zoom. Being able to quickly zoom from a body to a headshot is really important.
Re: non-L lenses, that would only be an issue if you were using JPG, and I've always shot raw. Fringing isn't a top priority when I choose a lens--it's more about sharpness, focusing speed, build quality, weight, handling, etc. but then again, I've never had a problem with it.
Check my Canon camera round-up video. The 5D Mark III is definitely my favorite camera, but it's not the right camera for most people.
Raw image quality is indistinguishable at ISO 25,000 and below, according to both my own tests (which included side-by-side examination by a panel of pros) and tests from organizations such as DXO.
I do talk about the vastly superior focusing speed of the 5D Mark III and specifically recommend it for wedding photographers, so we agree on that point... you make it sound like I think the cameras are identical in every way; that's definitely not the case.
Check my video on the topic of raw vs jpeg, as well as Chapter 4 of my book.
The biggest factor is going to be the types of photography you plan to do. If you're doing landscapes or portraits, get the 5D2. If you're shooting action, you should spring for the 5D3. Like the 5D2, the 6D's continuous focusing system is really only useful on the center point, so you're limited when composing action shots. However, it has some nice gadgets, like Wi-Fi and GPS.
Anyway, if you mention what your goals are, I can provide better recommendations.
I don't think we disagree. I specifically say the 5D3's video quality has some technical advantages over the 5D2's, but explain that depending on the type of work you do you might very well be better of spending the extra cash on lighting, sound, etc. The fact is many or most will never notice the video quality improvement.
Get the Mark II, used if you can find it. If you said you were doing wildlife and sports, I'd push you to a 7D. The Mark II is definitely the better choice for portraits, and the AF system is fine for that. You'll finally take advantage of your 24-70.
You might also grab a 70-200 f2.8; Tamron makes a $750 model.
BTW, check Chapter 6 in Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description) for more information about portraits and portrait equipment (including studio lighting).
And that's covered in Chapter 3 of Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description). I can't give everything away for free! :)
Yes, but the 7D has a higher pixel density. The 7D has 18 megapixels in that 1.6X crop, whereas the 5D Mark III has only about 14 megapixels in that area. So, for less money, you get more pixels... if you're definitely going to be cropping, which you pretty much are with wildlife.
Yeah, we've tried hand-held video for quick on-location shoots, and it's basically not doable without a large and expensive shoulder mount... and at that point, it would be easier to setup a tripod.
Well, it's confusing because it's not all about megapixels. Canon had been advertising two stops cleaner images, so images taken at ISO 1600 on a 5D Mark III would look like images taken at ISO 400 on a 5D Mark II. That wasn't true when shooting RAW files, and it frustrated and/or confused many buyers.
The only downside to the 6D is that Magic Lantern isn't yet available, and many serious video people rely on Magic Lantern. Otherwise the 6D is better than the 5D2 in every way, in my opinion... though some people say it has worse moire in video than the 5D2, I haven't gotten that far in my testing. I should have the test video up this week, so stay tuned.
It's glow wire. Chapter 10 in Stunning Digital Photography has a detailed description of how to do it.
Either one is a good start. I usually push wildlife photographers towards canon, and commercial photographers towards Nikon, but for most types of photography it really won't make any difference.
Find a good deal on a kit (check ebay), buy it, and get started. It's more about technique than gear.
Check out the Black Magic Cinema Camera. It takes Canon lenses, costs the same as the 5D3, and if you're a sticker for video quality, it's far, far better. It's also much more usable, because it's designed for video.
On Amazon right now, the 5D3 is 63% more expensive than the 6D.
I use a Sennheiser EW112PG3-A wired right into the camera if it's just one person. If it's two people, I wire the mics into a Zoom H4N and sync the audio in post.
Yeah, check my other videos--there's a more recent one that compares the 6D, 5D2, and 5D3. I generally prefer the 6D over the 5D2, though used 5D2s are going for $1200 now, which is a great deal.
If you're doing videos like I do, just go with the cheaper camera and don't wear striped shirts. With the Mark 3 costing twice the 6D or Mark 2, you'd better carefully assess just how much you're willing to pay to reduce moire. Still, the Mark 3 is fairly awful with moire compared to film-first video cameras, so "none of the above" is the right choice if you care about moire.
I have a moire test of the 6D, 5D2, and 5D3 coming next week.
People do it all the time and save themselves hundreds or thousands of dollars. It's good practice to pick a seller that allows returns, just to be safe. If the camera isn't in the condition advertised, ebay has a process to resolve it so you don't get screwed.
If it's for video, get a video camera. Check out the Black Magic cameras, too.
Modern video cameras are better at video than the DSLRs. There was a time period there when DSLRs were superior (when the 5D Mark II was new), but that time has passed.
Great reviews on the Canon 5D MkIII Tony, it's refreshing to hear such open and unbiased opinions.
I own 2 5D MkII's and was thinking about upgrading to the MkIII but after watching this video, the money is staying in the bank.
Sure more cross type focus points would be a help, but it's a lot of money to spend on the only feature I think would be of any benefit to me.
I think I'll wait until the MkIV is launched.
Thanks from me and my bank manager.
I've shot weddings with both cameras, for the record.
My tests, and DxOs, show no significant difference in image quality below ISO 50,000. But yes, I totally agree that the 5D3's focusing is far superior and that makes a huge difference for wedding photographers, which is why you and I both recommend the 5D3 for pro wedding photogs.
No, I really don't use the dual card slots. I've never had a card fail, though. I suppose if I had just one failure, I'd probably change my mind.
I have had cameras fail, though, so if I were you, I'd spend the extra money on a backup body.
Oh, I've read the stats on it. I plan to order one, too, for its video capabilities.
I'm not a fan of the A99. If you're a Stunning Digital Photography reader, check the Files tab for the DSLR Camera Buying Guide, because I have a comparison of their focusing systems in there, and a pretty detailed discussion of Sony as a system overall.
Well, I don't know your shooting style, so I really can't say. Sounds like you have a good setup. You seem to prefer primes to zooms, and your 135 f1/2 is already an awesome portrait lens, so maybe you don't even need the 70-200.
Maybe you don't need to upgrade at all. The question is, how is your current gear failing or frustrating you? How can your money best be spent to improve your results? Maybe it's on lighting or software...
OK, so take the challenge-which scenes were filmed with which body?
I'll agree that the 5D3 wins hands-down at high ISOs, and I always make a point of grabbing it when we're shooting at night.
Tony looks like Jamie Foxx.
yes, actually, the cheapest I can find now is $1350. However, it's a seller's market during the Christmas season, so I suspect they all got bought up. I bet in a month you'll see them for even cheaper, as people who upgraded to a 5D mark III sell their old body.
Hi, Lou. I have another video comparing the 7D to most of the other Canon cameras; you might watch that. I'm not sure what body you're using now, but you probably wouldn't see a big improvement going to the 7D. I think you'd have to spring for a 6D to see a real improvement in indoor volleyball... but that other video has lots of good detail. Hope that helps!
You can put it against consumer camera in some conditions and be hard to spot a difference, but If you used 5D2 on it's edge, when you try 5D3, you will see the vast difference in picture quality, moire, aliasing, color rendition, high ISO, and especially NLE processing and color correction.
Well, check Chapter 6 in my book Stunning Digital Photography for detailed information about portrait equipment, techniques, and lighting (link in the description). Yeah, I think a 70-200 f/2.8 is an absolute necessity, and Tamron, Sigma, and Canon make different versions at different price points. The 85 f/1.2 and f/1.8 are nice, too, but not as practical in the real world because you can't easily zoom between headshots and full body shots, and the short focal length isn't ideal.
You're right, this is all just my opinion, so take it for what's it's worth. Everyone should use multiple sources for their research.
Good question, and I haven't seen anyone review the D800's capabilities at night. However, I'd steer you towards the Canon 6D. I have a review coming out next week, but for night photography, the 6D is even better than the 5D3.
I specifically recommend the 5D Mark III for professional wedding photographers, so we agree, and I don't understand your tone... BTW, the high ISO performance is identical between the two cameras at any respectable ISO, but the focusing system makes a huge difference.
Looks like the f4s go for about $560 on Amazon. I'd push you to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, which is $770 new. That extra stop makes all the difference!
hahaha! It was during no-shave November, and I did shave it afterwards, but Chelsea seems to like it, so you might be seeing more of it.
Well, I'm a photographer but only a part-time videographer. "Massive" upgrade seems like an overstatement, though. Neither camera is particularly good with moire, but for my own purposes, moire really isn't a problem.
I think the only way to get a "massive" upgrade is to upgrade to a real video camera.
It's my main walking around lens, mostly because Canon's 24-70 doesn't have IS. The 24-105 isn't that sharp, but I do a lot of handheld work where I need IS.
I wouldn't buy both the 24-70 and 24-105. Instead, grab one or the other and get a 70-200 f/2.8. Tamron, Sigma, and Canon make versions at different price points, starting at $750, and there's no replacement for that shallow depth-of-field you get at 200mm and f/2.8.
Thanks!
Yes, check out the Levitation tutorial video.
I have bought your book and watched all of your videos over and over. Thanks Tony, can't wait until you upload another video!!!!!
That's a rather apples-and-oranges comparison, though you're right that the D600 has a great sensor. The D800 is more comparable to the 5D3.
Definitely get an f/2.8 instead of the f/4--the extra stop makes a big difference.
Instead of the Canons, I'd recommend the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD, $1249. Great lens, and it has IS in your price range.
Yeah, that's an awesome price for the 5D3! The 6D is amazing, too. The only real advantage of the 5D3 over the 6D is the focusing system, but it's a pretty huge difference.
I have a comparison video that should be out next week, so subscribe and stay tuned...
Yeah, but if you care about image quality, you don't shoot JPG, you shoot raw.
Using raw doesn't mean any more work in post. Lightroom converts the raw images automatically with no work from me.
It's tough, because I really need IS/VC on that lens, which is why I use the 24-105. I'd also really like that extra stop, though. I was really excited when Tamron's came out, but I have to say, as nitpicky as it sounds, I can't work with the circular bokeh. I'm not a bokeh snob, but it's so strange that I know I'd have to Photoshop it all out for every picture, and that would just be too time consuming.
But for portraits and weddings, you don't really need the IS/VC. Just get the Canon.
haha, well, I filmed it during No-Shave November, so what choice did I have?
Thanks, Billy! We should be uploading one today or tomorrow.
We use the 7D and Mark 2 all of the time despite having the Mark 3. We're trying to be practical, not condescending.
Agreed that the 24-105 isn't the greatest lens, but for me at least it's still the best "walking-around", general shooting lens, because I really love IS. I wish Canon would make a 24-70 f2.8 with IS... rumors are we'll see one near the end of the year. I don't like the Tamron version much.
Tony it not the equipment that matters, its the guy taking the shot or person behind the lens. A bad phot will be bad no matter what camera is use or equipment is employed.
It converse is also true for good photos.
The firmware update doesn't change the metering.
I'm excited about some new big megapixel camera, too... but there's no announcement yet, or even concrete rumors, and even if there is an announcement, it will be months before the camera is available.
So, if you're missing shots because of the 5D2's shortcomings, I wouldn't wait around for a camera that doesn't yet exist.
It’s 2022 and the 5DMk3 is still relevant. The 2, not so much, unless you’re really new and need a budget full frame camera.
Today, hopefully! I keep thinking I'm almost done, and it keeps growing longer and longer... I'm working on it now :)
I buy used cameras whenever I can, and I've shot hundreds of thousands of frames, and I've never had a shutter fail, nor any problem with camera lifetime. I would buy a used 5D Mark II from a reputable buyer on ebay who allows returns, and I wouldn't think twice about it. It's an amazing camera.
On that budget, get the Canon 400mm f/5.6 (but NOT the 100-400, get the prime). It's unbelievably sharp, and it's so good that it's the sole reason I push upcoming wildlife photographers to Canon instead of Nikon--there's no Nikon equivalent.
Check Chapter 8 of my book Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description) for more information about wildlife techniques and equipment.
MK3 is hands down better for weddings and where your subjects are moving. and for low light conditions. I have both and I see the difference in post production. Also the dual card slots makes your life easier on the wedding day.
Well, IS is better than not IS, but the IS models are more expensive. Sigma has the cheapest (they call it OS) at $1250.
If you don't have OS, you just have to keep your shutter speed fast enough. Refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description).
Re: noisy, yeah, that's an issue with dark, live performances, and there's not much you can do about it besides crank the ISO up and tolerate the noise.
Actually, I just finished a comparison between the 7D, 6D, 5D Mark II, and 5D Mark III. The 7D holds up just fine! In good light, you really can't tell the difference between the images.
I'm definitely excited about the raw video... even for the simple videos I do, when I'm outdoors, I'd love to have the extra dynamic range.
Maybe in the future once they have a workflow developed around it, it'll change my recommendation... but I suspect that's at least 3-6 months out, and nobody really knows whether it'll be suitable for professional or amateur video until then.
But, it's really exciting.
Hard to say. The 5D3 has the same detail in the center of the image as the 1D4, but the 5D3 is full-frame, so if you could get close to animals, you'd have more detail. The 1D4 has more fps, but the 5D3 is smaller and weighs less. Both are good, but I guess I'd take the 5D3.
The more a look and learn I think I'm just going to buy the 1D-X and be done with it. Yep, it's a lot of money but it gets you there in all of the areas I keep thinking about.
Yes, soon, I just need some time to edit it :)
Thanks, Michiel! See you there!
I actually almost always keep exposure compensation turned up .5 - 1 stop on my 5D3.
Easy, just use a long shutter speed. I do have a tutorial on shutter speed, plus I cover it in detail in Chapter 4 of Stunning Digital Photography (link in the description). The Night Photography chapter (10) covers long exposures with people, including people and objects moving through the frame while the subject is moving.
Nice informations. I actually stayed with the MkII while putting my money in lenses like 24-70 f:2.8 L II + 85 f:1.2 L II + 70-200 f:2.8 IS L II ... and it rocks!
I'd definitely buy a used 5D2. Check eBay, too--as long as you buy from a trustworthy seller with a return policy, you should be good.
Great review, was thinking a 1DX was next in line for bird photography, just find my 5D mark 111 isn't cutting it for me, wouldnt of thought of the 7D, good advice
just got my mkIII for 1300 with a shutter count of 5000 with a 70-200 f2.8 for 1000 and a 2x extender for 200. And I LOVE IT!!!!!
Thanks Tony! I use Mark II and was just about to replace it with Mark III. But I had doubts if I really need to pay that price. Your review helped me. I continue with my Mark II and buy some nice glass instead. Great job!
Interesting video especially since I bought a 5D mark III 6 month ago. I see you are using a WLAN SD Card to transfer the pictures on the laptop. Is that working really well (throughput, stability, configuration management) ? Would you suggest a particular brand ?
Thanks for your videos and advices... really useful in these times of confinment !!
Regards from France !
I have like 8 cameras and I use them all for different things, and some of them are just for fun. Different people have different needs and budgets, so one camera isn't right for everyone.
I'd get the 6D instead, if night photography is one of your goals. The live view on the 6D is *so* much more useful at night than the 5D Mark II's.
Yeah, as a pro wedding photographer, I would get the 5D3 for it's improved focusing.
I just got my 5dm3 . Thank you for all the amazing videos on it .
I use a Dell 3007WFP
I bought a Used 5D MK II for $750 on ebay, it hasn't even arrived yet but I think I will go ahead and buy the 6D and use that because it seems the 6D has many of the same features of the 5D MK II plus a better focusing system and better low light performance.
Appreciate the good comparison, it really made me think of getting the 5D2 over the 5D3, how about the 5D2 comparing to the new 6D?
Helpful advice! I think I'll stick with my 7D for awhile. I bought a 100-400mm and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mk II instead of buying the 5D Mark III
Focusing is definitely far superior on the 5D3. If you're shooting JPG the 5D3 is better in low light, and even in raw files above ISO 50,000 it's better. But no objective tests (including mine) show that the 5D3 is substantially better than the 5D2 at lower ISOs.
I think in daylight the 7D probably wins, but the 6D solidly wins in low light. Either way, they both have competent AF systems.
Hi Tony,Im so glad I stumbled across you on youtube-I love your straight to the point facts! Ive just ordered your book and so looking forward to receiving it! Greetings & Thanks from the UK!
Tony, I'm so glad I checked out TH-cam and ran across your comparison reviews of the Mark III and Mark II..... I've been hemming and hawing over the two for a while... I'm stepping up from my 50D crop (which I love) and have the 24-105L and 200 2.8L glass. Since I'm not technically a "pro" and I'm not relying on photography for income, you made the decision for me: 5D Mark II.
Thank you! I also ordered your book on Amazon. Looking forward! Keep up the great work. Dave in NY
Unless you have really strict requirements for video quality, get a used 5D Mark II and install Magic Lantern... and enjoy all that extra glass you can get with it :)
Managed to snag a mark III for 800 bucks including shipping with a low shutter count. Considering they seem to sell for 1100 plus on eBay that's my kind of deal.
Interesting video in 2021. The Canon that introduced many to modern AF, 2 card slots etc is now only $300-ish more than a 6D or 5DMK2
5D2 only goes up to ISO 6,400 in normal mode, only up to ISO 25,600 in expanded mode.
Sounds like we're in complete agreement re: 5D3 as a far superior wedding photography camera cf. the 5D2. Thanks again on putting together the polished and fine review. All my best.