Should I upgrade to the new Canon 6D MKII? (Page 4): Better go for the 5D IV not the 6D II>...

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Jakebrake wrote:

I am currently using a 5D MKII which has served my purpose admirably, however it's getting a little long in the tooth. I have read opinions and reviews until I'm blue in the face, so my question to 6D MKII users should I satisfy my gas attack and make the jump? B & H has a kit with a 24-105L for $3099 and I would like you folks opinion.

Better go for the 5D IV not the 6D II>

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Jakebrake wrote:

I am currently using a 5D MKII which has served my purpose admirably, however it's getting a little long in the tooth. I have read opinions and reviews until I'm blue in the face, so my question to 6D MKII users should I satisfy my gas attack and make the jump? B & H has a kit with a 24-105L for $3099 and I would like you folks opinion.

Why not upgrade to the 5D M III, or IV???

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Jakebrake wrote:

I am currently using a 5D MKII which has served my purpose admirably, however it's getting a little long in the tooth. I have read opinions and reviews until I'm blue in the face, so my question to 6D MKII users should I satisfy my gas attack and make the jump? B & H has a kit with a 24-105L for $3099 and I would like you folks opinion.

Forgive me for going off topic, but thank you for your service to our country.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Jakebrake wrote:

I am currently using a 5D MKII which has served my purpose admirably, however it's getting a little long in the tooth. I have read opinions and reviews until I'm blue in the face, so my question to 6D MKII users should I satisfy my gas attack and make the jump? B & H has a kit with a 24-105L for $3099 and I would like you folks opinion.

Read the DP review on the 6DMKII that just came out I believe yesterday! It would be an upgrade in many ways over the 5DMKII. I still have my 5DMKII and it doesn't do much these days. The 5DMKII was a good camera but left a lot to be desired to when it came to it's focusing system. I looked at several bodies, 5DMKIII, 5DMKIV, 1DX and the 1DXMKII, all FF. It depends on what YOU want to do as to your type of shooting. A good used low shutter count 1DX would be nice or even a new one. If I had the 5DMKIII I wouldn't upgrade to the 5DMKIV, but you don't. I don't know how serious you are or how much you want to spend and neither does anyone here but you. I bit the bullet and went with the 1DXMKII and am so glad I did, but that's just me. I am serious, worked as a pro for over 25 years and now shoot 95% wildlife. The almost lack of noise is a treat compared to my 7D and 7DMKII. If you have a camera store near by go and check out what you can. I went to B&H in NY and did a hands on some of the equipment that I bought. Nice vacation too. Good luck and let us know how you do. You only live once!

rcdovala

The original 5D is a classic and is still very usable. I purchased a used 5D for less than $500 with less than 3000 clicks on the shutter. I took it into Canon about two years ago to have their free mirror fix performed. It is a fantastic FF camera. I have since heard that Canon will no longer service this camera. What a shame.

sirlensalot wrote:

Depends on what you want to do with it. Then again, you're asking someone still using the original 5D. Will replace it when reaches a point where repair costs exceed the value of the camera when and if it does break. Until then, it remains as my favorite wedding and portrait camera. 6D would probably exceed the 5D for what I use it for, but I think the 5D III or IV will provide better versatility.

lamontcranston

rcdovala wrote:

The original 5D is a classic and is still very usable... I have since heard that Canon will no longer service this camera. What a shame.

If that is true, that would be a deal breaker for me. I would want factory service available if needed.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Worrying about if your "old" camera can be fixed by Canon is a bit of a waste of good worry time. Why not just give Canon a call and find out for sure if they'll fix it or not. From my experience, I'd rather shoot with my 5D Mark IV any day. It's frame rate is better than the 7D Mark II, and give a much better picture over all. I've got a boat load of "L" glass now, and more on the way, those lenses will work on either bodies, and my 6D. As for the better body, I'd go for the 5D Mark IV, or the 6D Classic if money is a issue. Add the new 24-105mm with either 6D body, or 5D Mark IV. Good Luck.

B

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

Jakebrake wrote:

I'm interested TriX. Where can I find a used 5D MKIII and a 24-105L lens for 2 grand?

You're not likely to find that combo for $2k. A good quality Mk III body goes for abt that price. Throw in the 24-105 F4 L, and you will be looking at a 3 bill. Worth the price however.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

DeanS wrote:

You're not likely to find that combo for $2k. A good quality Mk III body goes for abt that price. Throw in the 24-105 F4 L, and you will be looking at a 3 bill. Worth the price however.

I was referring to used (as mentioned in my post), not new, but glad you agree it's a worthwhile combination 😎.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

clickety wrote:

Just this week I bought a 6DmkII to replace my 6D. I did this because the articulating screen will allow me to capture image angles that I can't physically get into position for. i expect images to be equal or marginally better (yet to be compared). An unexpected bonus is the screen now remains smudge free. A reason to upgrade, for me yes for others??
We all perceive our 'needs/wants' differently and then seek our 'tools'.

Spending $2000 for a camera that will give you "images ... equal or marginally better" than your existing camera in order to get a touch screen seems like incredibly poor use of $2000, but its your money.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Bill Emmett wrote:

Worrying about if your "old" camera can ... (show quote)

Could you please explain what you mean in regard to the frame rate of the 5DMKIV being better then that of the 7DMKII. One is a crop and the other is FF so it's like comparing apples to oranges. Thanks

rcdovala

As I approach my golden years, things that I did when I was 40 years old are, at best, difficult if not impossible to do now. Having an articulating screen becomes a necessity rather than a luxury for getting low angle shots. While $2000 may seem like a poor investment to you, it may be money well spent for others. And as you astutely pointed out, it is his money.

mwsilvers wrote:

Spending $2000 for a camera that will give you "images ... equal or marginally better" than your existing camera in order to get a touch screen seems like incredibly poor use of $2000, but its your money.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rcdovala wrote:

As I approach my golden years, things that I did when I was 40 years old are, at best, difficult if not impossible to do now. Having an articulating screen becomes a necessity rather than a luxury for getting low angle shots. While $2000 may seem like a poor investment to you, it may be money well spent for others. And as you astutely pointed out, it is his money.

I'm glad he has the money to burn on a $2000 touchscreen.

rcdovala

I think that the poster is referring to an articulating screen, not a touch screen.

mwsilvers wrote:

I'm glad he has the money to burn on a $2000 touchscreen.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rcdovala wrote:

I think that the poster is referring to an articulating screen, not a touch screen.

On the 6D Mark II its both. Spending $2000 just to get an articulating touch screen on a camera with similar IQ to one you already have seems to me a poor use of so much money unless you have money to burn.