Recently I was chatting in a photo forum and mentioned that I am loving my new Canon 5D MK2. Someone noticed and said, "do you mean the MK3?" When I told them no, I recently bought a new MK2 I got flamed with questions of, "WHY?!?!" Well let me explain...
You see, I had been shooting on a Nikon D300 since November of 2008, and it had served me well. At the time of my purchase I was shooting a lot of things that involved movement and on-camera flash (I was shooting a lot of "underground" hardcore punk rock shows). The D300 coupled with an SB900 served me perfectly. As time went on though I broke away from shooting these kinds of shows, and broke away from using on camera flash. Slowly but surely I found myself shooting more stuff in natural light, or with off camera flash. I dreamed of purchasing a D700 for a while, but as time went on and life ran its course, my financial situation never permitted the upgrade.
Fast forward 4 years and now I primarily shoot portraiture and fashion editorials. I was no longer utilizing the 52 point AF system of the D300, and in fact I had reverted back to primarily using my center AF point as I did when I shot film on a Nikon N90s. I often found myself shooting wide and cropping in, which at 12mp wasn't always the best idea. It was time to look for more. I knew I wanted to make the jump to full frame, but I had some options to weigh. On the Nikon side my options were the D600 or the D800 (I had no desire to drop the kind of money I would need on a D4). The D800 had me salivating, but the thought of having to buy way more hard drive space and ram to handle those file sizes is what turned me off. The D600 had it's own set backs, and at the time the sensor dust issue was a giant turn off for me. On the Canon side there was the 5D MK3, MK2, and the 6D. The MK3 was awesome, but at $3500 at the time, it was a little out of my price point (I was trying to keep this purchase below $2500 if at all possible). The 6D was nice, but as with all new technology, I didn't trust it yet. Also the 1/180 flash sync speed of the 6D was appalling to me. That left me with the MK2.
The MK2 has an inferior AF system compared to the MK3, but when I am just using it with the center AF point and for pretty still subjects, it is beyond perfect. The MK2 doesn't have as good of low light performance as the MK3, but comparing ISO 2000 of my old D300 vs the MK2, there is no contest. The MK2 doesn't have a burst rate like the D300 or the MK3 but I am not shooting action, and thus I have no need for this. Finally, the file size of the MK2 files is almost double that of the D300 files, but not so extreme that I was looking at massive upgrades for my computer. At the time of my purchase too, the MK2 could be had for $1500. It was a no brainer for me.
At the end of the day, I don't even think that the camera makes the photo, but rather the photographer does. With that being said though, the upgraded features of the MK2 over my D300 definitely make taking photos much easier for me, and make my job a lot easier in many situations. Technology is going to constantly evolve, and at what point do we say, "ok, this is good enough," for me, that was with the MK2.
My name is Anthony Tripoli, and I proudly bought a 4 year old camera.
Well, you don't need the latest DSLR to shoot well, for the same reasons you're still shooting film. Your biggest problem transitioning is that Canon changed their lens mount, rendering your perfectly good lenses useless on their modern bodies. That's one advantage with Nikon, every lens back to Ai fits on all modern bodies, and on the lower end DX bodies, every lens going all the way back to their 1959 beginnings fit!
Yes, it'll be a new investment in lenses. I'm thinking about getting a Canon F-1N so I can capitalize off my FD lenses.
Well if you do gets DSLR, it doesn't mean there is no way to use FD lens on EOS body, you can find adapters on eBay or amazon... FD to EOS adapter for under 30 to 20 bucks
Unfortunately those introduce additional glass elements which will degrade the image quality of the lens.
Just one questions...Why not the D600? Better than 5D mark II in terms of specs but pretty much same price and you could have saved your glass and flashed. Why not?
/Stefan
http://stefanhellberg.com/
I just bought a 4 year old D700. love it
Did the same thing and I don't regret it for a second. Got a low count D700 and Nikon battery grip for $1,500 less than a D800, will use that money for glass. Have a brand new D7000, haven't touched it since the day I got my new old camera...:)
Hey, Im using MK2 and Im really happy with it. Sure I would love to have MK3 but will never keep up with technology today. There is always something better coming up. I guess Ill wait till price drop a bit...
I bought Canon XT and 7D in 2010 as I begin learning DSLR. later, I just got better and better. I just recently bought the EOS 5D in January 2013 because i know 8 years from now 5D Mark III prices will go down pretty hard. Gears are gears, latest and greatest not going to make your photos better but make your job better when you wants something fast and simple but your skill is the heart of photography.
I own a 7D and still have a 20D. I plan on getting better glass and upgrading to a MKII. I'm saving my 20D for my daughter who at 6 is taking a real interest in photography. I used to sell film and digital cameras back when digital was in it's infancy. I always heard which camera takes the best pictures and I said and still do, it's not the camera taking the pictures it's the person behind it.
As long as its the right tool for the right job. In the end its just a tool, something I have to remind myself daily ...