Canon 5D Mark II - if you owned

[amatula15]

Hi!

The local camera shop has a used 5D Mark II. 

I currently have a Canon SL1 and was looking to upgrade.
I had been considering the Rebel T8i and the Canon RP (mirrorless full-frame).

I looked at the specs for the 5D II and they seem fine even though they do not have the latest and greatest of anything.

I handled it without battery and with the very light weight 50 mm F/12.8 lens and it did not feel heavy (but would want a heavier/longer lens than that one to help with stabilizing the camera) -- I am petite and use cameras hiking.

If you have owned and used this camera, what are your thoughts on it, especially for landscape?

I am also going to be working with ND (neutral density) filters and maybe seeing if I like astrophotography.

Thank you and all the best!

Annie

[wq9nsc]

I agree with Ernie about the full frame versus crop, either/both take very good photos.  My first quality digital was a Canon 1D Mark II which was a 1.3 "crop" midway between FF and the common APS C 1.6 "crop".  It worked very well and still produces beautiful output as long as there is enough light, high ISO noise was its biggest shortcoming and ISO noise performance and dynamic range are the areas where the greatest gains have come in image quality in the recent past. 

In general, I would go with a newer "crop" sensor over either an older full frame or crop sensor.  I shoot with 1DX series now because I need the speed, AF performance, and low light performance and they are full frame designs but I wouldn't have hesitated to buy them if they were still 1.3X crop sensors like my original 1D 2.  To me, the biggest reason for full frame versus crop is for the same number of megapixels the individual photosites on the full frame sensor are larger with the greater area of the full frame sensor.  For the same generation of technology, the larger light collection surface of the individual cells provides lower noise at lesser levels of illumination but this might not matter to you if you typically shoot with plenty of light. 

Disclaimer, I have never used a 5D II but I do have a 5DS and 5DS R which are largely built on the 5D III chassis.  These were bought through the gray market, something I don't really advise but since my doctoral dissertation was partly in this area and I am fully aware of the risks and benefits I felt comfortable doing so.  For me these are useful when I want a high resolution sensor (50 MP) and I have been happy with their performance.  Once I added battery grips to them I am very comfortable going between my 1 and 5 series cameras, prior to that the lack of duplicate vertical orientation controls really bothered me because I was so used to them from the 1 series.

Rodger

[Tronhard]

If I may throw my two cents' worth in here...

Field of View

In a way it goes back to how the lenses will work with the subjects you want.  I have both FF and crop cameras and frankly, as others have said, they can both do a great job, depending upon what you want to use them for.

You say that you are currently using a Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens on your crop sensor body and that is your go-to combination.  One immediate observation will be that what a FF camera delivers will not match what you are used to in terms of Field of View.  A 24mm lens of your APS-C body has a FoV Equivalent to that of a 39mm lens on a FF body, so your images on a 5DII will be delivered at 24mm, thus they will exhibit a much wider FoV than you are used to - that is neither good nor bad, but it will be different and worth consideration.

Like you, I have had happy experiences with older cameras, but in my case I got all but two of them when they were current models.  The two exceptions to that were the Canon EOS D30 (2000) and D60 (2003) that I got because they were landmark cameras in their time, which fitted in well with some courses I was preparing, and I wanted to make a point that one can get decent photos from older technology.  I absolutely still use all of my older gear on occasion; however that said, would I use them as my normal day-to-day kit?  Given the range of gear choices I have: no, not really.  You, on the other hand, will be assumedly using this as your main unit.

To me the biggest issues with the older technology are:

• The sensor performance and in particular lack of dynamic range, plus slower processing. 
• The video aspects are not relevant to me but might be to you, in which case the 5DIII would be a much better bet if you were going to stick to that lineage.
• Old cameras are often not supported any more, so you should find out if there are issues if you can get the camera fixed, by whom, and how long that would take.
• The direction in which the market is moving

If you are seeing a long photographic timeline ahead of you, then you should consider the fact that the future pretty much belongs to the new EOS R cameras and RF mount- certainly in terms of FF  units.  That is where the body and lens development is has its schwerpunkt right now.  If you see that as significant, then investing in a R-series body to which you can add RF native lenses in the future seems like a prudent consideration.  If you get an R-series body with the lens adaptor you can still use your existing EF24mm unit, but then grow into the R line over time.  The bodies will be smaller and lighter (but not necessarily the lenses), but they should still offer better performance overall than a 12 y.o. camera.

[amatula15]

Good info! Thank you, ebiggs.
I have wanted F/1.8 -- would be perfect for landscape. I think I looked over the Sigma you mentioned due to the lack of IS -- but at F/1.8 I don't need to the extent I would on a F/3.5+ lens. I can check that out! Thank you, again,

[amatula15]

Rodger,
Thank you so much!
I loved your comment,

" For the same generation of technology, the larger light collection surface of the individual cells provides lower noise at lesser levels of illumination but this might not matter to you if you typically shoot with plenty of light. "

I have not heard that previously.  One area I want to get better at is low light landscape, not just night photography, but general bad lighting conditions outdoors: dense trees, storm brewing, mostly dark except for where the light is coming through in small areas, fog....  That is one of 3 areas I want to expand into, the other 2 being:

- using an ND filter 

- astrophotograhy.

So... maybe that Canon RP or 6D is a good idea after all.

Currently I do get too much noise so need to work on that, a F/1.8 lens may help but better technique would too.

Thank you, again,
Annie

[amatula15]

Thank you, Trevor,

Yes; I do not think the 24 would be my most used lens on a full frame camera.  For the R series of cameras, Canon now has the RF 35 mm F/2.8 lens which gets good reviews and even has a level of macro ability.  It also has IS.

I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8 that ebiggs mentioned (despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized.

The R is a a bit pricey but the RP is 999 USA dollars plus $450 or so for the RF 35 mm, so a good option there.

Annie

[Tronhard]

I think it is important to consider your purchase, not simply in terms of THIS camera or lens, but in the system  as a whole over time.  Equipment is not cheap and one does not want to end up having to re-equip necessarily.

The move to the new RF mount and R-series bodies poses a bit of a dilemma:

As people inevitably move across to the new mount and bodies a lot of good, used EF and EF-S mount bodies and lenses will come onto the market, offering some tempting deals.  If you have no asperations of moving to the new mount, then this could be a good deal.

On the other hand, if you intend to continue to purchase new gear on an on-going basis over time then this seems to be the time to look at making the move, as otherwise you will end up with legacy gear like the people in the previous paragraph.

Remember also that bodies change frequently, but your lens purchases can last for decades.

---

@amatula15 wrote:

Thank you, Trevor,

Yes; I do not think the 24 would be my most used lens on a full frame camera.  For the R series of cameras, Canon now has the RF 35 mm F/2.8 lens which gets good reviews and even has a level of macro ability.  It also has IS.

I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8 that ebiggs mentioned (despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized.

The R is a a bit pricey but the RP is 999 USA dollars plus $450 or so for the RF 35 mm, so a good option there.

Annie

---

[Waddizzle]

Sometimes the question of upgrading to a full frame camera is not always about image quality.  

Believe it or not, for aome people is all about angle of view and availale lens selection.  I know that is why I upgraded from a T5 to 6D.  I like to shoot landscapes.  The FF angle of view was wider.  To assume the only raosn someone wants a FF body is fo image qualtiy is a very narrow minded opinion.

[ebiggs1]

"... for aome people is all about angle of view and availale lens selection."

Lens selection is far greater for a cropper than it is for a FF.

"The FF angle of view was wider."

Not necessarily.  You just need to select the correct lens.

A full frame camera can have some, or even a few, characteristics that are better than a given similar cropper but neither of these are them.

[shadowsports]

Annie,

I didn't own the 5D2.  In 2012 I had a Nikon point and shoot and a couple of Canon Camcorders.  I was working for a software devolpment company and we were shooting lmor video.

The Nikon was short lived.  I've been a Canon user since '73.  I've never left the brand.  The guys and myself have given you plenty to think about from a upgrade perspecvtive.  Its ging to come down to money and what your goals are.

[ebiggs1]

"I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8...(despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized."

If you think f1.8 or even f1.4 will eliminate camera shake you will probably be disappointed. Having a larger, faster, aperture will allow you to select a higher SS so that part will be good but the larger aperture brings its own conditions, baggage, too.