Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2011, 12:20 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 109
Default Canon 5D Mark II or better?

I have been thinking of upgrading to a better camera. I really like the 5D2 even more than canons "flagship" mainly because I don't like being stuck with its gigantic size. Anyway, with that in mind, does anyone think that there is a better camera out there?
__________________
Pentax K-x
18-55
55-200
Photoshop CS5
Trihame is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 10, 2011, 12:28 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you shoot action then the nikon D700 for a FF camera. But the canon does have HD, and it produces excellent photos. That is why canon sell so many of these FF camera. Big with the wedding photogs. You really can't go wrong with the 5DII.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 12:30 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

PS you are locking yourself into really expensive lenses with Full Frame with the nikon or the canon to fully realized the larger sensor. It is a really expensive path.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 3:23 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The Sony A900 with the brilliant Zeiss lenses are also very good option.

Best for low-light - Nikon D700 (just a little better than the 5D2).
Best for resolution - Sony A900/A850 (just a little better than the 5D2).
Best all-rounder - Canon 5D2.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 4:57 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 109
Default

The lenses seem to be the same price (and focal length) as Olympus's for their PEN cameras and as Pentax's for lets say the K-x. Is there something Im missing? The 5D2 takes EF lenses so can you elaborate on what you said about the lenses being expensive?

Do you guys know anything about the LEICA M9 "Titanium"? I know the lenses are going to be expensive but does the fact that these lenses are the best in the world make the camera and lenses worth the extra money?
__________________
Pentax K-x
18-55
55-200
Photoshop CS5
Trihame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 5:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 109
Default

Oh, I like shooting anything and everything. I enjoy probably Nature and outside photography the most. After that I like to play with the depth of field/bokeh in my photographs with macro type photography. I shoot with a K-x right now and I am out growing it fast. I don't want to just upgrade to a little bit better camera, I want to skip the middle and just get the end camera. I know that once I do get the "end" camera that I will eventually get a new camera once this camera get "obsolete" but I think you guys will get what I am saying. Anyway, what I have noticed with my K-x is I shoot with a telephoto lens most and I need a camera that will be able to shoot with a wide range of color and in low light for shots of the sunset or sunrise or stars, ect.... idk i guess I just need the all around camera that can do decent with it all....
__________________
Pentax K-x
18-55
55-200
Photoshop CS5
Trihame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 5:08 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I guess the question initially comes down to what you want to shoot. Sure the 5DmkII is great, I have one, so does peripatetic and they produce really nice shots. However, depending on the sort of photography you want to do, it might not be the best use of your money. The body is only a part of the equation, getting the right glass is also very important too.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 5:13 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The Leica M9 is a fantastic camera, IQ with the Leica lenses is undoubtedly better than any of the others.

The Leica is NOT a DSLR however. It is a manual-focus rangefinder system. If you are shooting any action/sports/wildlife/telephoto/architectural/flash photography then forget about the M9. Macro is possible, but only marginally. Where it excels is in people (street and portrait) and landscape photography. I would happily use an M9 instead of my 5D2 (if I could afford it, but I can't) but for most people the M9 is simply not versatile enough as compared to a DSLR.

Ignore the "titanium" they are a limited run of 500 all sold, mostly to collectors.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 8:29 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The larger sensor can resolve more light. The older regular EF lenses just can not keep up. That is why all the new L lenses form canon are so dam expensive, they resolve a ton of light.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 9:02 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 109
Default

So would the EF 24 - 105mm f/4L IS USM work good with the 5D2? is that what the L is after the f/4? I was originally thinking of going with that lens and then another zoom lens that would carry my to at least 300mm however to do so with the "L" lenses would cost way too much money. What if I just cut the middle man and go with the EF 28 - 300mm f/3.5 - 5.6L IS USM? Do you think that that would hurt the quality of the images enough to matter? I mean the lens cost almost as much as the camera does... What about a different camera? Any suggestions?

__________________
Pentax K-x
18-55
55-200
Photoshop CS5
Trihame is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.