If planning to buy a full frame Canon......what to do?

[Tom75]

I am still struggling with my wide angle lens question (see thread in the lens section) which was the starting point that I looked even deeper into this and now have another problem

Actually I wanted to have a wide or ultra wide angle lens for my 600D and after a lot of reading, help from the forum and even some tests with the sigma 12-24mm lens which I actually like, I am asking myself now the question whether I should already now with the lens switch to a full frame camera.

I think it is fact that the canon 17-40mm is quality wise much better than the sigma lens however it is no point bung this canon lens for my 600D because it will be far from a wide gale lens.
I tried the sigma lens with my camera and that was quite ok but I could have it even a little wider because with my camera it is at 12mm really 19mm.

I played already with the thought to switch to a full frame camera in the future and actually I had a 5D mk3 in mind because it is much faster than the mk2 which is important I think for sports, fishing photography etc.
The thing is that I will not buy a mk3 for the current price which means I would have to wait at least something like 1 1/2 years. Therefore I was thinking if I would be satisfied if i would buy now a mk2 with a canon 17-40mm lens?

I did already quite some reading about comparisons between the the 5d mk2, mk3 and also 7d and it seems that the speed is the main disadvantage of the mk2 compared to 7d and mk3.

How is the mk2 with respect to high ISO because this seems the other main disadvantage compared to the mk3?

I am grateful for any comments, suggestions or ideas regarding my not easy situation.

Thanks and regards,
Tom

[brucep]

Hey, Tom. We meet again.

it seems that the speed is the main disadvantage of the mk2 compared to 7d and mk3.

How is the mk2 with respect to high ISO because this seems the other main disadvantage compared to the mk3?

I don't understand where "speed" is an issue. The 5DII doesn't have the burst rate (the speed - frames/second - and maximum number of continuous shots that can be captured before the internal buffer is filled) of a 7D (which has a smaller sensor/mirror so it's faster), and I suppose the 5DIII might have a tad faster/longer burst rate (I haven't checked the specs). I only shoot sports occasionally, and even then I don't "spray and pray." If I shot action sports a lot, I'd have a 7D.

With today's DSLR's, shutter lag (the time from when you press the shutter until the photo is captured) is zero for all practical purposes, so you wouldn't find the 5DII to be sluggish, nor the original 5D, for that matter. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and your camera or the 7D.

The 5DII's high ISO performance is so good, it's almost like cheating. This photo was shot in a dim wine cave at ISO 6,400:



as was this one:



(There were people in motion and I was teetering atop a padded chair shooting candids.)

With most other cameras I try to stay at ISO 400 or less, with a definite ceiling of ISO 1600. ISO 6,400 is four times (two stops) higher than ISO 1600.

Even with the 5DII, I try to keep my ISO as low as possible, but you can see what's possible. I upgraded from the 5D to the 5DII because of this increased low-light capability. I have no plans to buy a 5DIII.

Canon occasionally has refurbished 5DII's available (with warranty, etc.) for $1759.20. There was recently an offer for free shipping late last month, too. (Probably doesn't apply to Norway.)

I've been shooting my 5DII since early in 2009. I could not imagine being happier with a camera than I am with with mine.

[Tom75]

Thank you very much for the professional answer brucep.

I thought earlier because of what I heard about differences between mk2 and mk3 that a mk2 would not be optimal for my use but during my research for this matter I also got the feeling that the differences are, as you also say, not so big that it would be worth such a price difference.

I am generally always trying to keep the ISO low but with my 600D I can also go up in ISO to 6400. When I did that for example for outdoor shots in the dark where I don't have or don't want to use a flash, I was actually never satisfied with the result due to high noise.
I have no clue how a mk2 performs in this respect compared to a 600D at ISO 6400 but If I would make such a switch to a mk2 I hope of course that it would perform better.

Would there be any other technical or performance disadvantages of a mk2 compared to 600D, because the 600D is actually a newer model....... Except maybe that the mk2 does not have any flash.

Thanks and regards,
Tom

[brucep]

In its "high sensitivity mode," the 5DII will go from ISO 50 to 25600. The results are better in its normal mode of 100-6400 ISO.

You can compare features/specs of the 600D, 5DII and 5DIII at B&H Photo Video (using those links).

[Tom75]

Thanks for the information.

I will visit my local store next week and have a look at the mk2 and 17-40mm lens. Only thing is that I would actually have to buy a second lens because I guess I will not be able to use my 18-270mm on a full frame camera?

Regards,
Tom

[brucep]

I'm not familiar with your lens, Tom. If it's an EF-S lens, it won't fit on any of the 5D series cameras.