For a long while I've contemplated whether I should upgrade to a Full Frame DSLR. Having had the opportunity to test out the new 5D MK IV and an older 5D MK II I opted to go with the MK II version. Why would you opt to go with an older version offering less megapixels, dynamic range, resolution and not to slower autofocus? Well for me it's quite simple. Upgrading to the 5D MK IV would mean me not only upgrading my 2009 Macbook Pro but also my current versions of Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom. You see as a Landscape Photographer the dynamic range, coupled with the resolution and detail I get with 22 megapixels is more than enough for me when making 48" by 32" prints not to mention offering a fast enough workflow when processing my images. And yes as I mentioned the auto focus of the MK IV is simply surperb but that really doesn't matter to me as someone who only focus manually. Below is one of three images shot this weekend with my new 5D MK II which might I add I had the shutter mechanisim, LCD and mirror replaced by Canon effectively making it pretty much a new DSLR.
I feel you made a smart choice, specially if the Mk2 meets all your current needs; I bet the two used cameras also had a very different price and you saved some coin by not "over buying".
I'm still in APS-C land myself (24MP) and would very much like to make the jump to full frame. I'd make the jump for the better dynamic range Full has over APS-C and to get away from "crop-factor" (uggg!). I just had my first 16x24in print made and the results are stunning.
Like you I find the 20~24MP range just fine for nearly everything. Given we have other techniques at our disposal, like image stitching and image-up-scaling software... do we really need 40, 60, 80, 100MP images straight from camera? I can't answer that as every photographer has different needs... But when I do want bigger images stitching and up-scaling seem to fit the bill easily enough. Drive space and processing-overhead are very real concerns as well.
Nice to hear a breath of sanity in megapixel, newer-is-better land, Kreyg.
I'm amazed how many people here are using the Sony mirrorless cameras, for instance, which I gather are very good, but presumably most of these people dumped a whole lot of lenses in doing so, and had to buy more. All for... what, exactly? I'm sure SOME people were looking to change and modernise their system when Sony did their thing, but did ALL of them really need to?
I'm not seeing a whole lot of better new images from this!
I'm still wondering whether to trade up from my old MF Nikon 28 & 35mm AIs lenses. The 35 is my least sharp lens, as pixel-peeping reveals during processing. But you couldn't tell which of my A2 prints were made with that or my sharpest, also an old 55mm AIs macro (I've got a 60mm AF macro but rarely use it because manual focussing with it is virtually impossible). And I've never focus-stacked or stitched a pano yet.
Gear won't make anyone great.
Absolutely correct.
Thank you for your post and following comments - I have been considering the same "upgrade" from a Canon 7D to either a Mark II or 6D - and the comments on being enamored with more pixels (over pixelated!) have helped me lean to the Mark II.