joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Have you considered all of the costs for changing brands?...especially if you have a lot of accessories.

Jim Bianco

Thanks to all for the info, a great help. Jim Bianco

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Thank you for showing me this. I had no idea you could even do this and it may save someone needless expense,
otherwise if they would find themselves in a similar financial difficulty.

I cannot say enough about the level of generosity and kindness that many on this forum exhibit to better assist the learning curve for so many of us ,out here in the weeds with many of these types of issues.

Thank you again.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

I had a Canon 5D MK II several years ago as my first full frame camera. It was my cheapest option as I was on a tight budget. I sold my Nikon D200 and a few lenses my wife did not want to use with her D3500.

Th 5D MK II was fine for most photography but as mentioned here the focusing system was lacking with 9 points and no f8 autofocus even on the center point. For fast moving sports or BIF it was fair but not great. Mine was still going strong at 160,000 clicks when I sold it. They can be had for under $500 in pretty great shape. MPB has one with 4711 clicks for $548 here

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-5d-ii/sku-1155098/

Here are a couple of photos out of mine. 1st is canon 100-400L second is Canon 50 f1.8

(Download)


(Download)

ELNikkor

The Canon 5DIII can be had for around $850 from KEH, but so can the Nikon D750. I'd be hesitant to change systems, as there will always be a "grass is greener" syndrome. For that matter, a new Nikon Z50 may cost a bit more, but, with an adapter will be able to use your current lenses, or, you may just want to get into the Nikon mirrorless system altogether.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

No way, no how, would I give up my Nikon for Canon. If I were you I would buy a used D810 or a D850 if you can find one. KEH or MPB have them at reasonable price (when in stock). They go quick.

Nikon Fan Boy

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Perhaps, but like most things in life, it depends!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

That’s been said before.

(Download)

kcooke Loc: Alabama

The OP doesn't have the budget for either of those cameras or the 5D MK III. Im not sure how much the 600, 610, 700, 750 or, 800 are selling for but the 810 model is a bit over $1000 for a good one from a retailer. When I bought my 5D MK II 4 years ago for $550 it was way cheaper than any Nikon full frame I could find for sale used. I wanted to stay with Nikon as I had used their products for many years but just couldn't afford it. Fortunately I sold enough older Nikon gear to get the funds to move over to Canon and change lens too. Some things about the Canon system are better and some things about the Nikon system are better. Its kind of like Fords and Chevrolets or BMW's and Mercedes. I currently have a 6D MK II, 7D MK II and an EOS M5 and I am happy right now. Just sayin.....

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Jim,

Owned and used a 5D Mk II for many years. It's a fine camera for its day (12 years ago), but has some limitations.

First, it was a ground-breaking model for VIDEO. It was truly revolutionary to have such a compact, affordable camera to shoot high quality video. It was widely used in Hollywood for movies and television, not to mention amateur use.

But first look back a little farther. In 2005 the original 5D was the first full frame camera "for the masses". Prior to that, the only full frame cameras were pro 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II models that cost as much as a small car and are much larger with an integrated battery grip.

Part of what made the 5D more affordable was it's simpler AF system. On the surface, it appears identical to the 9-point AF system in the 20D and 30D APS-C cameras from around the same time frame. Actually the AF system has 6 additional points, but they are hidden and only work in certain modes. But, in comparison the 1D-series cameras were using the high performance 45-point AF system largely inherited from the EOS-1V and EOS-3 film cameras. The original 5D was a stills camera only, no video or Live View. It uses an approx. 13MP sensor.

As mentioned, the 5DII from late 2008 introduced video capabilities (along with Live View shooting). It also got bumped up to 21MP sensor, which interestingly was the same being used in the far more expensive 1Ds Mark III that had been introduced a year earlier. However, the 5DII was able to shoot at significantly higher ISO than the 1DsIII. The 1DsIII's ISO range was 100 to 1600, expandable to 50 and 3200. In comparison, the 5DII's ISO range is 100 to 6400, expandable to 50, 12800 and 25600. The 5DII also was one of the first Canon DSLRs to have a self-cleaning sensor, which was really welcome because the original 5D had a bit of a reputation as a "dust magnet". The 5DII also was one of the first Canon cameras to utilize LP-E6 batteries (which were very hard to find initially... and often sold at a premium over the list price). New versions of that battery system are still in use in many Canon cameras. It was a solid improvement over the BP511/BP512 that were used in earlier cameras.

The 5DII is a "mid grade" build quality with mostly metal exterior panels, reasonably good sealing for dust/weather resistance and durability rated for 150,000 shutter actuations. It's shutter also has top speed of 1/8000 and flash sync of 1/200 (both faster than the more "entry level" models like 6D-series full frame and "Rebel" series crop sensor models).

All good stuff for the 5DII. But everything isn't rosy.

Unfortunately, Canon didn't upgrade the AF system on the 5DII at all. It's essentially the same 9-point + 6 hidden system as the original 5D used. It's not the fastest or the best tracking movement. So I wouldn't recommend the 5DII (or original 5D) for sports/action photography. It's AF is pretty good for low light, though not as good as many Canon modern cameras.

Canon saved the AF system upgrades for the 5D Mark III in 2012, where it inherited a slightly downgraded version of the 61-point system that was then being used in 1D-series cameras. Aside from that, the 5DIII mostly saw incremental upgrades. The sensor only increased to 22MP (where 5DII's was 21MP), but it was new tech offering even higher ISO. The 5DIII's viewfinder was increased to 100% coverage (vs 98%). The rear screen is slightly larger and higher resolution, too. And it got a second memory card slot: one CompactFlash, one SD (versus one CompactFlash in 5DII). And it has a faster continuous shooting rate of 6 frames per second (versus 4 fps in 5DII).

Now, I'm not saying that you absolutely can't use a 5DII for sports, wildlife and other active subjects. I'm just saying it's not the best camera for those purposes. There are other Canon that do a better job thanks to higher performance AF, faster frame rates and other tweaks.

I shot these with my 5DII...





That mule deer posed cooperatively so was no problem with the 5DII. The hawk was another story. I was lucky it was hanging around and hunting a small field for almost an hour, giving me opportunity to take 50 or 75 shots of it on the wing, to get two or three that were in focus and usable. (I'm accustomed to getting far more action shots in focus and usable with my 7D-series cameras and 50D before that. They're much better action cameras than the 5DII.)

If you're planning to take posed portraits, landscapes, architecture, etc., no problem. 5DII can handle it. Macro, product photography, 5DII will work fine for those too. But if sports or other action are your thing, it's not the best choice.

I don't know what kind of "deal" you've been offered. Looking around at 5DII for sale various places online they seem to be bringing $400 to $700 on average. Maybe one that's had light usage might bring more.

For a little more money, newer APS-C format Canon 80D (24MP, 45-point AF) and original 7D (18MP, high performance 19-point AF) can be found, as well as original, full frame Canon 6D (20MP, simple 11-point AF, more entry-level build/performance).

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

And your goofy point is. DUH.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Read previous posts.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I did. Its just my opinion. I could have filled the page with why to switch or not to switch. Nothing propinques like propinquity hey Goofy?

Haydon

In it's day, the 5D2 was ground breaking as a high megapixel camera and it's video capability. The show "House" was frequently filmed with the 5D2. If one can afford the difference, I'd recommend the 5D3 simply for the advanced autofocus system.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Jim at this point are you really serious about totally switching because of COST? Do you think you are going to SAVE MONEY by dumping your present gear and starting over? There must be another better reason that I am missing.