My 5D MK2 got stolen several years back on a trip to New York. I was so heartbroken that I didn't bother getting a new cam for a long time. This week I bought a 5D MK2 used and it's great to be back at it! Also thanks to your content I decided to go "back to the roots" instead of a new mirrorless. I feel like new born with an old friend…the 5D MK2.
I owned 3 5D Mark II's before upgrading to a 1DX years ago. What you are saying about this camera mostly mirrors my experience with it. I took mine anywhere and everywhere while I had them and never worried about any harm coming to them. My favorite lens to pair with it was the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art series lens. I trusted it as my one camera on a 10 day trip to Italy in 2017. While I was there, I accidentally dropped it onto a brick plaza from a bit over 3 feet high. It did not even shrug. The next day it was outside as a torrential rainstorm hit us in Spoleto. It was probably out there in the direct rain for about 5 minutes. I grabbed it and brought it inside, where it worked like a charm as if it was born to handle it. The 5D Mark II is legendary, and Magic Lantern makes it such a more capable camera today!
Wonderful. So true that specs don't always correlate with results. Whenever I mention the 135/2, I get protests - "But Samyang, Rokinon, RF 135/1.8, progress etc." I think of a saying birders have, "When the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird." The 6D has a lovely sensor for people pics, too; much nicer than the 6D2/RP.
It would be nice to be able to compare side to side cameras with the same lens just to see how visible it really is. It's hard to find online, thanks to reviews being spec based. And studio isn't quite the same as challenging light when the white balance is blue hour or warm golden hour - the difference between regular daylight and the extremes will show the real ability for the camera to differentiate subtle colors well.
I still have this camera, even though I am firmly in the Leica and Nikon camp. It still produces lovely files. I quite like it with my 50 EF F1.4, although I mainly use it with 24 105 F4 and the 70 200 F4 IS.
I owned this camera for years before going mirrorless and in combo with the 16-35:f4 and the sigma 50mm f1.4 dg hsm early version was my favourite set up ever definitely the best colour science going and not bettered to the current date.
I shot a concert a few months ago with a 5dmkii. No issues. I'm one of those photographers who complains if something bad happens. Simply put, there was nothing to complain about.
I've been shooting with my 5D MKII for a few months now and I've been stuck using the basic 50mm STM lens and I absolutely love it. I can't wait to get the EF 24-105mm and 17-40mm lenses soon, I love the way this camera renders images, the images almost look like hyper realistic paintings and objects kind of pop out at you. This has been the best camera I've used so far.
Another really good lens to although fixed focal can be multi purpose, the Canon f2.8 100mm Macro lens. You can find the non L model for around $300 used but it's great for low light, Macro obviously and portrait and general photography. I would use mine for street photography on 5D and 5DSR cameras and it was all I needed
The complaints about bent pins with CF cards are mostly due to low-quality generic-brand card readers. Just be sure to get a decent reader from a reputable manufacturer and you'll never have a problem. Love my 5d2 and will never part with it; that sensor really is special.
11:10 CF Cards are not really needed: you can easily get an SD adaptor for the Canon 5D mkII, which is what I did and it works perfectly fine, while you can easily transfer images through any Computer SD slot. I even bought a couple of Toshiba Flash Air SD cards, and the camera can even transfer files on the go with my phone as any modern mirrorless with a WiFi. I also notice a peculiarity of the 5D MkII sensor: it seems to be able to correctly record the specific tile/turquise range of the sky, which is almost impossible for me with many other cameras I have, including the more modern RP, Olympus and Panasonic. This is the reason why I'm always in awe when I see a sky picture taken with the 5D MkII. The only other camera that could replicate that colour was my old, trusty EOS 450D/Rebel XSi/ EOS Kiss X2
that's right, the transmission of blue - green shades is the most difficult task for a sensor, as well as, for example, for monitors of various standards. In inexpensive smartphones, for example, today you will not see the full range of shades of the sea , as a rule, everything will go blue. And I like the first 5D even more in this transfer of shades. and if you take a 10d pentax, it will surprise you immensely. It has an additional processor for working with color. Although it has only 10mp and iso workers up to 400
Interesting. My potential k200d used the same sensor as the K10d. It was good looking but very very inconvenient. The 6D was a world apart but still great looking. @@photo1416
I started off with mirrorless and purchased a few DSLRs and started to lose interest in all the new cameras on the market. On my Pentax k70 I’ve captured colors straight out of camera I can’t easily achieve with my Panasonic s5ii. Call me lazy but I always shoot raw + JPG but usually just do a small tweak to the JPGs. With a DSLR I love the feeling of the mechanical shutter and mirror slap. It feels like I’m actually taking a picture. To many it does not make sense but these older cameras provide me more inspiration to shoot more.
I just traded a mirrorless and went back to a dslr. The ergonomics are superb (for me) and the joy of a long battery life is back 😂 I still have a little mirrorless that is practically pocketable but do love my new to me dslr again
5Dii and 1Ds3 were the last canon bodies to utilize old bayer matrix (legendary canon colors). Newer models changed it in pursuit of ISO performance. I work on R5 as it fits my workflow the best, but for slower work and most importantly the joy of it, I use 1Ds3 set to JPG and profiled for my needs. It just with a little experience, produces awesome photos out of the body, without those countless hours of editing afterwards. Of course you can't get as far with it as a person who spends 1 hour on a single photo in Photoshop, but it's a different type of use here. I simply love the results 1Ds3 spits out.
@@michalsierzchula same here, 10/10. 5D4 and 5Ds are similar but not as good. 1ds3 for me is the best canon camera to this day. Need to check the 1Dx lineup but I’m very impressed how good the 17yo camera can be.
Martin,great video as usual. Your success with the mark 2 is very easily explained, You and the camera are one,, the images you produce with that camera just shows that. Spectacular. I perform almost as good( note almost ) with my D850, we are just connected. Your work has impressed me since the first video. Your portrait work is stellar, please keep the videos coming.
I watched this when I came out but on my phone. I decided to watch it again on my computer and I am glad I did. These images are great! I have never owned a 5D2 but I do own two 6D bodies. So, I just mentally substitute 6D whenever you say 5D2. I assume they are about 98% equivalent. Even though I have transitioned to Olympus for most of my needs, I am not only keeping my Canon gear, but I just bought a couple of EF lenses.
I see what you mean about color science. I do a lot of dance photography in difficult lighting conditions. Before I bought an Eos R I rented an R6 mk1 and had a lot of work to correct the colors compared to my 6D. Colors and general result of the R are much closer to the 6D. Very important for me. The R is now my 2nd camera, and only with EF glass. But my 6D with 70-200 f4 IS is still unbeatable. Anyway, thanks for the always interesting information in your videos!
I had this camera for two years and I hated every second of it. It was an upgrade from my 50d which was my first “nice” camera. I felt bad because I spend so much money on the 5d mk ii and I didn’t enjoy the experience. At first I thought I was doing something wrong, but over time I just realized it wasn’t the camera for me. I’m glad you enjoy the camera and I know there are plenty of others that feel the same.
For me it was a mixed feelings as the images were quite nice from it, but banding and noise killed it for me. I've changed it to 6D, which was miles better, even though it had funky colors and high contrast and then to 1Ds3, which to this day is one of my favourite cameras. I don't shoot it much nowadays but each time just feels special. I've wanted to convert it to IR but couldn't find a clear glass filters for it :|
The fact is it was very affected by poor dynamic range and noise performance. In good light it produced good images, it was very challenged if there were exposure issues that needed correction. The issue was caused by some circuitry being "off sensor", connected with an array of buses that generated heat, and hence all this horrible magenta noise and banding. Sony sensors of the day were not designed like this, the circuitry was either on, or very close to the sensor, giving considerably cleaner files. It wasn't until Canon went to its CR3 raw files Like 1DXmk iii or the 90D, that the situation was addressed.
@ if you used it as a film camera and underexposed it a bit, it produced amazing colors. Just like a slide film would. High contrast, crushed blacks and vivid but creamy colors. It was not good in other situations, but in this one it was one of the best in class, and it’s still. Nowadays cameras have more latitude but not as much charm.
@@matuszewskistudioYep, good light and not trying to recover shadows. Let them fall naturally and choose your exposure for the look you want. Don't be afraid to lose the shadows or the highlights if they don't matter. Having everything visible means it's lower macro contrast, and often more boring.
Another excellent video, thanks Martin. Have the Canon 5dii and 6d and prefer the 5d for landscapes overall. 70-200 f4 IS is likely to be my next lens. Like you say, excellent bang for buck, gets consistently good reviews. Just trying not to spend money too quickly!
The 5D Mark II was my first full frame camera. I loved that camera. There's a special quality to photos from that camera. It's got soul. I still regret selling it and may pick one up soon.
I am soo glad I found your channel. I have a 5D Mark II since years and i did not changed to anything new due my budget limitation, and each time I read about specs of new cameras I was not quite happy about my camera. What you said changed my perspective. Thank you for this! I'm using it with a 50mm f1.4 mainly
I’ve got a mint 5D mkii with less than 1000 shutter count also have the 24-105 f4. Unfortunately it doesn’t get much use as the Olympus OM1 is my go to camera owing to its size, weight and image stabilisation. But I really love the build quality and ergonomics of the Canon.
I completely agree! Despite the fact that I have shot with many cameras, I still use Canon mk1. Although the Nikon z6 or Canon 6d mk2 is much better in terms of characteristics. But this is only in theory. In practice, for some reason, if possible, I want to shoot everything on a Canon mk1, Canon 6d or Nikon D700.
I've been shooting a 5D Mark II since it came out. I keep thinking I should upgrade to the Mark IV. Given your perspective I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I'm such a fan of the fact that you still encourage people to use these older bodies. I have thousands of dollars in glass and I still prefer to do most of my shooting(and find that my best shots come from) my beater d700 that I paid $180 for.
@@MartinCastein It is. I find that compared to 6d/5dc/5dii it doesn't perform as outstandingly in some circumstances but has shown itself to be so reliable that I reach for it before anything else. I'm planning to grab an 85 1.4d to pair with it at some time in the near future, I'm very excited to see how they perform together. I'd be interested to see your thoughts on lenses to pair with some of these classic full frame bodies and some shots with each. I know you've covered 85mm and 50mm focal lengths specifically but I'd be really interested to see you look at some more exotic glass.
I still go back to the 6d for nature photography, it's better dynamic range makes it a bit easier to get good photos. The colors of the 5d mkii is so nice though.
Well...I have a Canon R6 and had the bright idea of buying a Nikon D700....I can't say what is it with that "old" camera but...I can't get enough of the results..
Great video, I have a mint Canon 5D mk2 with less than 1500 shutter actuations on it, just sits in a box with its battery grip and a 17-40 lens, as I use just rangefinders now. Completely agree with everything you said about it. Nice to see the old girl getting some love! Will be trying to move the Canon on I think to someone who will love it again. Loving your channel. Subbed.
I used to own the 5D Mk ii, a great camera no doubt and I still miss it. The reason why i shifted to mirrorless is that DSLRs (+ lenses etc.) were sometimes just too heavy for my hiking, particularly high altitude ones...
I got the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR a couple of months back to replace my old 24-85G for use on my D600. Just that confidence that the VR gives you that your image will be sharp handheld makes a big difference to the experience of a day out taking pictures. You can just forget about a tripod for well lit situations with reasonable shutter speeds and be sure of getting the details sharp.
I have the same camera and the same lenses. I'm an old guy but a new photographer. Your video made me feel validated in my choices. I'm waiting for Canon to make an R5/R6 type camera with technology the OM-1 mark II has available. Until then I'll work on the basics and enjoy the great images I'm getting.
Thank you for a very interesting video. BTW I know what you mean about “not all sensors being the same” and “RAW is not RAW” all the time. I have two cameras from the same manufacturer. Same sensor size, same colour science but one has a newer processor and more RAM. The colours on the newer camera are just richer, the image quality is simply better.
I wanted one of these when they came out but couldn’t afford one. I eventually picked one up “by mistake” on eBay. It’s a really decent camera and I love shooting it, even though I have access to some “ better” cameras.
I completely agree about shooting RAW not a fix to colors and rendering. I've said before my Nikon D750 was a phenomenal camera, but its RAW output was lacking in both blue and green shades. Grass looked completely fake out of camera and so did skies. I spent far too much time fixing its colors and I finally traded it in. Fuji has nice colors but the controls are not my cup of tea at all. So here I am in 2024 looking at Canon 5D II and 6D I, along with D600 and D700 Nikons. Still can't choose. I absolutely love 5D II colors in photos from so many photographers, and yes I know they're edited photos so not a true representation of SOOC colors. However, when dozens and dozens of photos look great across a spectrum of many images, it's a confidence builder that the camera itself has a great stage to perform on, so to speak. I can spot a Nikon D750 or newer image quickly if it has a lot of greens (leaves, grasses, plants) or a lot of sky present. Some have overcome the issue with great editing, but most do not and a look through FLICKR demonstrates that. Do the same with a 5D II and 6D I, and that issue isn't present at all. Actually, their colors are far more pleasant in comparison. Thanks for these videos Martin. I've learned so much from your hard work, one video at a time. Your lack of bias for Nikon or Canon allows you to tell those of us with less experience all about their good and bad qualities without "go buy this" pushes. Really respect what you do and how you approach it. Like a scholar.
Interesting, D750 was my first camera, then I bought Canon R6 II and didn't like the files and like many others, the editing in Adobe's programs was pain for me. With the D750 I did not need much editing, interesting, but gives me some thoughts, maybe because I started learning on the D750 made it so I did not see its flaws.
@@grom5756 Very well could be regarding learning on the D750. That probably provided your basis for measuring others against. For me it was my 4th camera and I was in a hunt for the right fit for me. It was my first full frame, but I chose it based on all its other features like the autofocus, speed, ISO invariance, low light capabilities....everything else basically. It is an amazing camera. I did about 15K photos per year and time showed me that my nature photos were requiring a ton of work to get the greens to look natural and skies to look real. For other photos it wasn't very noticeable, but skin tones were more orange in the sun than I liked, on top of those other issues. I just found I didn't like its color output in raw as a starting point. Fuji and Olympus do it way better for me, but I'm not a fan of tiny cameras or those clunky controls on Fuji. So here I am looking at the 5D II for its file output and hoping I can just deal with its other weaknesses in dynamic range and AF.
Another great video! I totally agree with you re: color/RAW; my sports setup is a Canon 1DX with a Nikon D4S and D800. The Canon photos always just "fall into place", and I have to fight when editing the Nikons, and I'm rarely 100% happy with the results. If i didn't prefer Nikon ergonomics, I would switch completely 🙂
I previously shot all my work on film, 35mm and MF and and then my daughter gave me her Canon 600D (which I had bought for her) and I felt like I was cheating and figured that's how everyone became a photographer....just like that! 🤣 am now getting an old 5d MK II as I jump up to full frame. I nearly went Fuji mirrorless but the viewfinder made me feel like I was looking at a miniture TV. Optical viewfinder I cannot live without. Thank the Gods for adapters though!
Do you have any video about sensor sizes and your preference and reasons? It would be interesting to watch. I'm thinking about going with Fuji, but the lack of full frame sensor is a concern
@@MartinCastein I would like to know the differences, mostly about the "look". I was thinking that for the same composition the compression is different because you need other focal length or the depth of field is different because you need to step back with a smaller sensor. About the concern. I like the look I get when using my 6D. I always thought it was because it's full frame, my other bodies are APSC. So I'm afraid an APSC sensor cannot give me the same. It's the fear of missing something maybe.
Martin, once again, your well-explained, heart-felt view point may help some that haven't owned different combinations of gear. On the same subject, but with a slightly different angle, the following scenario also can not "just be fixed in post". For my amateur shooting of outdoor portraits or indoor sports, one of my favorite primes is the 200mm f2. This is for many reasons, but when you want subject separation, and smooth out-of-focus backgrounds, or need the light - nothing I own matches it (Not even the Nikon 105mm f1.4). Now I don't own the 135mm f1.8 PLENA, but I hear it's a bit different as well. My point here - and thanks for baring with my long winded explanation, is that my mirrorless body enables me to have a much better experience, both in shooting and reviewing the photos that other bodies like the DSLR D700/D850 etc. Part of this might be technique, but my keeper rate is much higher on th4 Nikon Z9 than the DSLRs. This frees me up to become involved with my subject, rather than worry about hitting focus. Point is, there are bodies that provide a "special" rendering to some (i.e. Canon 1D Classic, Nikon D700) with certain genres, but then other bodies that work for other projects. Part of it is emotional, part of it is physical, but you just can't recreate everything in post - including the experience you have while shooting with that camera. Once again, nicely done.
yes i agree with all of this, i mean i wouldnt want to be shooting the canon 85mm 1.2 on the 5d mark ii, its a hellish experience and id rather just get that setup on a mirrorless body. It all depends as always and also as you say certain lenses cant be replaced.
@@MartinCastein We see eye to eye (and lens to lens) ;-) Your thoughts are always appreciated. Keep up your special work! I very much enjoy hearing you make your arguements.
chào anh, tôi sử dụng nikon d300 và d800 nhưng màu sắc nó không như tôi mong muốn, tôi thấy ảnh của anh rất thích nó, hy vọng anh có thể làm 1 video chi tiết về cách anh hậu kỳ, chỉnh sửa vài tấm ảnh chụp chân dung trên file nikon. cám ơn anh rất nhiều.
I bought my daughter a D700 and she very quickly bent (and then broke) one of the card slot pins. It took me hours to fit a new board and since then we don't ever remove the card and always use a USB cable to extract the files instead.
I used to use the Canon 5D MkII many years ago, especially for landscapes photography and professional video assingments. But eventually upgraded it to the Nikon D800 for stills photography, which is far, far better quality than the 5D Mk2
@@MartinCastein I loved the 5D2 at the time, but found the images tended to be very 'digital'-looking and harsh compared to the amazing depth of the D800/D810/D850 sensors. The Nikon handling is far better in my view and reminds me of my old Nikon F5. (I also own a couple of Panasonic cameras). But in the end it's all down to personal taste of course. My main reason for switching away from Canon was that as much as I liked the 'L' lenses, I preferred the build quality and glass of the legendary Nikkors.
Gret video Martin, I love my 24-105 but I'm considering selling my 17-35 It's not what I was expecting, I bought it for working in smaller venues for gig photography.
I forgot about the cmos sensor. It’s , well said limited? But the canon colors though. And yes. That’s a thing. Imho I feel that Nikon looks. Clinical? It’s accurate. But I went back to film. So i have Kodak colors. 😂 Nice line up of glass. 👌🏻 and including the Nifty Fifty. I think that’s a remnant from the 80’s. Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m gonna look forward to some landscapes.
I didn't quite get the lens you mentioned whether it was 17 or 70, in any case, the 70-200 f4 IS lens is very expensive, I found some in the region of £250 and £389 quite frankly unless you are a professional photographer who takes pictures for a living the lens is way too expensive, at least for me. I have the 6D and the 5D Mark III cameras, I used to have the 5D Mark I. Which was also a great camera.
Amazing Stuff as always Mate. I myself got the 6D Mk1, partially because of your channel as well, and I absolutely love that thing 🤩 Got me a Nifty Fifty for it and upgraded with the 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4 and it is just so much fun 😁 Sure some modern stuff is missing, but for me and my hobby it is just amazing 😊
Got a d800 myself, and I like its image better than my sony mirrorless tbh. It just has character and 3d pop, modern lenses seem to be uncanny in its sharpness. I mean I don't see stuff that sharp with my eyes.
I know and sharp doesnt mean good, i think i experienced this when i saw 4k video on tv the first time in the nature documentaries and thought no, thats not for me. Also tv series that have spanned the film to digital transition, you can see it there. Yes its sharper but it doesnt look as good.
thank you for the effort and sharing. i am an appreciative subscriber to your YT channel. a question: you were demoing your process using Live View. is that how you photograph using the 5D mk2, Live View rather than the optical viewfinder? as always, BIG thumbs up.
For landscapes mostly, i use the rear screen a lot on RUclips to show what I’m doing too, but for landscapes almost entirely the rear screen but not for portraits, then I use the viewfinder but might use the live view to set exposure
Hello Martin. Love your videos. I have not used with the Canon 16-35 IS or the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR, but according to the specs, the Canon lens weighs 21.7 ounces and the Nikon weighs 23.9. This is roughly a 10% difference. Are you thinking of the Nikon 14-24 lens instead?
I actually looked it up after recording and found the same. I think it must be that the Nikon one is front heavy or something because it always feels much heavier like a lump of a lens to me, I’d still absolutely use it though.
Great video, I’ve come across your content a few times and today I hit subscribe. I’m still using my 5D Mark iii and have been considering upgrading everything to mirrorless. It’s kind of a sad feeling and exciting at the same time. I don’t think I’ll get rid of it if I do upgrade.
sure, and i think it depends on what you do, especially if you photograph people that are moving i think mirrorless makes complete sense for that, for instance if i were shooting weddings again id definitely go for mirrorless as focus speed trumps everything.
@@MartinCastein I appreciate the insight! I shoot portraits and family lifestyle. The thought of autofocus would be a dream instead of aiming my focus point at a toddler running towards me haha.
@@KaylaIveigh oh for you you should be using mirrorless 100%, the difference for me is just autofocus and video, if you are tracking moving irratic stuff or in difficult conditions then mirrorless and dont look back. For outdoor portraits of adults etc its a different story.
@@KaylaIveigh Eyetracking is probably one of the biggest wins with mirrorless. Canon DSLR lenses seem to work very well on their mirrorless range with the right adapter.
I love my Mark2 but it suffers from cheap glass and user error. When this camera hit the shops it changed the way that Hollywood worked, check out the number of movies that featured it. Cheers mate.
I was working with a pair of 1Ds Mark III on weddings loooong after everyone upgraded to the "latest and greatest" from Canon. I tried the 5D Mark IV for a while but hated the files. Too cold and clinical and needed boatloads of work to get the colors where I wanted them. Modern Canons are still not there. The R8 (which is one of the cameras I am using now) has that modern Canon look (a bit weird, maybe too accurate. Can't put my finger on it) but it is fairly neutral so I can usually profile it to get the look I want. That said, when I take my oldies out for a spin (especially the 40D) I just know instantly what Canon has lost down the road. But to be fair, so has Adobe. A lot of the color science is also pleasing profiles made with great efforts and somtime around 2015-2016 Adobe decided to kill the vibrant warm colors for Canon. Even Adobe Standard looks heaps better on the old-timers.
Thank you for sharing and well said as always . In general terms regarding raw , it's useful for professional photographers that are commercially hired & the SD card is given to an editing team , for general everyday photography in raw is by far overused & is completely unnecessary & not all professionals shoot on raw . In general all camera manufactures invest millions in research & development to produce a perfect (Joint Photographic Experts Group ) image and there are many reasons for this , unfortunately I simply don't have the time to explain , but you can review this online . Raw images are intended for commercial purposes & for the main part rather like bracketing Raw edits can look somewhat unnatural , this is often addressed by the photographers that shoot 120 film regarding the art of true landscape photography as in capturing the moment without tampering , but I do understand that all this is subjective & each to their own . Regarding the run of the mill main camera manufactures & what image quality is the best ?, there's a simple rule , Canon makes printers , Sony makes tv's , Fujifilm makes 35mm film , ( Nikon makes cameras ) .
Unfortunately my Canon R5 doesn’t have that canon magic colour out of the box. Well at least I don’t think so. My 6D has it so I know what to look for.
Martin I have a question about the video... When someone gets a 5D mark II, shouldn't he go with a 24-70 f2.8 because of the limitation that you metioned before (dynamic range/exposures)? Wouldn't help the extra light that absorbs the f2.8 in what file you'll get in the end (especialy in these older dslrs)? Also, when someone looks in used lenses can see so little difference in the price if the result is superior in the final image... let's say that f4 is about 400e and f2.8 is at 550... And the same question goes along for the 70-200 f2.8 or f4...
it depends if you are going to shoot at 2.8 or not, if you are buying the f4 you get excellent image quality in a much lighter lens, for instance for landscapes im more like to be at f8 even so 2.8 is pointless, if you are shooting people the 2.8 lenses make more sense unless you are in a studio where you can control light but the 2.8 might be the look you want. For landscape for me the 2.8 offers no benefit over the f4. Answer is, it depends.
@@MartinCastein Yes! I was thinking about a set like this: a) 16-35 f4 (for Landscape) b) but... 24-70 f2.8 (for people) c) ---> and a macro lens... I think 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6... I dont know for the f2.8... but I wonder If you want to take a picture let's say of "the iris of the eye", should there a f2.8 be more efective?? Or the f4 is capable also for that kind of stuff? (Ι feel confused about the "c" option... what do you think... any advice should be very useful...)
@@johnnathan2149 yeah thats a sensible list of options and what i would do as well, i think the C option sort of needs to be C and D because deciding between a macro or a 70-200 are two different categories which is probably why C feels confusing. Split C into C and D so 70-200 and a macro and get whichever you need most first and the other. later.
Okay here's a dumb question Martin...In Lightroom, using cameras with limited DR, do you bother turning on the highlight clipping? or do you just edit the values of the photo by eye. I hate the fact that i have to slam the highlights to negative 100 on a lot of images that are exposed properly for middle values to completely eliminate the HL clipping. Is it better to think of it as film where an image will inevitably have pure white and pure black in areas?
This is a hard question to answer like this and its a video i need to make. To try and think of a simple answer, you should be aiming to make the picture look the way you want it to and not trying to fit some idea of non blown highlights or whatever. If you like the highlights blown then do that. but there arent many ways to get the info from the file without doing something that achieves that if you want the highlights. I edit by eye though, I will use the clipping points sometimes as a reference if im not sure. The answer is it doesnt matter as long as you get the result you like.
@@MartinCastein Thanks Martin, I've gotten a bit obsessive about it. Canon is notorious for that white sky effect which I think you've alluded to in other videos and I think I just need to start with clipping turned off so I can look at an image for what it is as i am editing instead of focusing on making sure nothing is clipping because it feels like a fool's errand. As long as the main subject isn't blown out/clipping, it probably doesn't matter. Thanks for the insight! I thought it was odd I could recover highlights easier on my 5Dc than on my 6d2 but it's more likely that the larger sensor is just picking up more colors/gradation thus it's a much more gradual transition when backing off the highlights than the steeper cliff of less colors/pixels of the 5D
It depends on how much editing you want to do. But if you use your histogram when you are setting your exposure, if you want nothing to blow in the picture you can just make sure the far right hand side of your histogram does peak. That will mean raising the shadow areas, depending on how much contrast is in the scene you might be better off taking one exposure for the mid ones and one for the sky and blending after. That would get you a well balance picture. Depends on what you want, or you can let the sky go, its really up to you in the end.
@@MartinCastein thanks for the insight Martin, always appreciated! I did some comparisons this weekend between the canon 5dc and my 6d2; the differences weren't as extreme as I thought they would be with the latter just needing the tint adjusted less green more magenta and the saturation/vibrance knocked down a tad
I love my 5Dm2 colors. When I went to the R5 I was like what the hell. I also have an R3 and it's much better, it has 'Canon Colors.' It's super important to use the 'Camera Standard' color profile in LRC. I hardly need to touch my files in editing. I shot for years with the 5Dm2 with the 17-40mm and. Sigma 50mm, and the 135mm. I still use EF lenses with the R3 and R5, they have a more organic look than the RF lenses. I know people think that is strange, but I'm sure you understand.
Fascinating regarding the R5 and R3. Wonder how the R6 and R6 2 fit in there. I've got the 5D classic and 6D and jumped up to the R6 after the screen died on the 6D. I haven't seen a glaring color issue but there might be some small extra stuff to the older one.
@@mikafoxx2717 I decided over a year ago to spend at least 6 months using canon nikon and sony for my actual work to see which i liked most. The progression was sony nikon canon and now im back with nikon. All are very capable but i wanted to find what I liked the most then go into that.
There's nothing wrong with the camera, I have over 400,000 acts on my body. I suppose as long as you don't do much photography with things that move. It still is a great camera. But if you have any interest in mixed subjects, and you don't get a smoking, great deal on this body, you're doing yourself a real disservice by not experiencing Much faster. Auto focus. (especially with older adapted glass, even something like a 500 F4. Mark two.)
I'm a life long Nikon shooter but last year I got a great deal on a very low shutter count 5D II and got a couple standard prime lenses for it and looking to dedicate it as my portrait set-up once I get a 135 and 85mm. However you may have convinced me to add a couple zooms to the kit now that prices are great and then I can have my "day hike" kit. it makes sense really. Like you said, the Canon DSLR colors are unique and something worth trying in the outdoors as well as the kits being slightly lighter than my Nikons... Going to have to look into these lens choices.
As always the thing stopping me from using the older Canons is the CF card. They are gross and yuck. I have seen some adaptors around, and I wouldn't mind trying one of them some time and then I might look out for a Mk ii deal.
@@RichardFraser-y9t I don't like how it plugs in and it's not aesthetic to me. I've bent plenty of pins on it, push it in the wrong way with enough of a rush and bam, bendy banana. Sure the modern ones might be better, but I'm done with it now
@@RichardFraser-y9t Actually a better way of putting it is it's like going from USB back to serial port. Even if serial mouse worked just fine, no way I'm going back voluntarily
Excellent video! The only reason that I am not unirng my 5d mk ii is my fascination with Minolta Rokkor lenses. From the mirrorless world, the neglected Eos R, that is the mini 5d mkiv, is as close to the mkii, as it can be in the mirrorless world. My most favourite camera for quality is the Canon Eos 1Ds mkii, that has even more filmlike quality, but is quite heavy.
Just buy another Canon 6D they are very inexpensive and like you said it's the modern Canon 5D Classic. I still have mine want too get another one they are so inexpensive. I mostly use mirrorless now Eos R And R7 I do want like the R8 or R6 maybe R5 though still very pricey. Still something so special about those 5D 1 2 3 and 6D sensors it's like an kinda of magic. 😂 Canon really deliberately messed up the 6D Mark II though.
These cameras have always been good. Ignore the hype and just shoot. Millions of pro images have been shot on 5D mk2 and even classic. Always been more than good enough…. Maybe look at your own skills rather than a better camera. All the best photographers had way worse cameras 📷 back in the day.
Dynamic range is such an overrated feature of a camera IMHO. The most revered film in history, Kodachrome…had 5-6 drops of DR. A 5d Mk II has 12 stops at base iso. I’m terrible at math, but that’s a HELL of a lot more wiggle room to play with. The limitations of DR I truly believe is one aspect that makes people think the sensors are “magic”. It’s just that you can’t make it look boring and flat. It comes out properly if you expose it right and….drumroll….position yourself according to the light. Also, the individual color luminance on these older cameras are tuned differently and with intention. Today it just seems like they are all tuned to be perfectly flat so the user can adjust at will. Thing is, most users don’t do well with too many options.
Really interesting, thanks Martin. I took my 17-40, 70-200 IS and my 6D on a photo workshop at Cwm Idwal in the Ogwen Valley in mid September. I was tempted to just take the 24-105 IS, because I enjoy using it so much, and it's really versatile. However Simon Kitchin, the workshop leader, advised me to take the other two lenses. I think it was a good call, because the Cwm often demands a very short focal length of around 17-20mm, but also Pen yr Ole Wen and Tryfan photographed as main subjects require 100-150 when photographing from high on the path leading to Devil's Kitchen. I took the 50mm with me, but I found that the 35-40mm range was sufficient. I also took the L 1.4x teleconverter for the 70-200, but didn't use it...
My 5D MK2 got stolen several years back on a trip to New York. I was so heartbroken that I didn't bother getting a new cam for a long time. This week I bought a 5D MK2 used and it's great to be back at it! Also thanks to your content I decided to go "back to the roots" instead of a new mirrorless. I feel like new born with an old friend…the 5D MK2.
NYC is THE hood. Stay away from that public urinal
I owned 3 5D Mark II's before upgrading to a 1DX years ago. What you are saying about this camera mostly mirrors my experience with it. I took mine anywhere and everywhere while I had them and never worried about any harm coming to them. My favorite lens to pair with it was the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art series lens. I trusted it as my one camera on a 10 day trip to Italy in 2017. While I was there, I accidentally dropped it onto a brick plaza from a bit over 3 feet high. It did not even shrug. The next day it was outside as a torrential rainstorm hit us in Spoleto. It was probably out there in the direct rain for about 5 minutes. I grabbed it and brought it inside, where it worked like a charm as if it was born to handle it. The 5D Mark II is legendary, and Magic Lantern makes it such a more capable camera today!
Wonderful. So true that specs don't always correlate with results. Whenever I mention the 135/2, I get protests - "But Samyang, Rokinon, RF 135/1.8, progress etc." I think of a saying birders have, "When the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird." The 6D has a lovely sensor for people pics, too; much nicer than the 6D2/RP.
It would be nice to be able to compare side to side cameras with the same lens just to see how visible it really is. It's hard to find online, thanks to reviews being spec based. And studio isn't quite the same as challenging light when the white balance is blue hour or warm golden hour - the difference between regular daylight and the extremes will show the real ability for the camera to differentiate subtle colors well.
I still have this camera, even though I am firmly in the Leica and Nikon camp. It still produces lovely files. I quite like it with my 50 EF F1.4, although I mainly use it with 24 105 F4 and the 70 200 F4 IS.
I owned this camera for years before going mirrorless and in combo with the 16-35:f4 and the sigma 50mm f1.4 dg hsm early version was my favourite set up ever definitely the best colour science going and not bettered to the current date.
I shot a concert a few months ago with a 5dmkii.
No issues.
I'm one of those photographers who complains if something bad happens. Simply put, there was nothing to complain about.
I got myself the 5D mk2 when it was new along with the 24-105 f4. The pictures i took back then still stand up amazingly well.
Which camera and lenses are you using nowadays ?
I've been shooting with my 5D MKII for a few months now and I've been stuck using the basic 50mm STM lens and I absolutely love it. I can't wait to get the EF 24-105mm and 17-40mm lenses soon, I love the way this camera renders images, the images almost look like hyper realistic paintings and objects kind of pop out at you. This has been the best camera I've used so far.
get the 16-35 f4 it's so much better than the 17-40,
Another really good lens to although fixed focal can be multi purpose, the Canon f2.8 100mm Macro lens. You can find the non L model for around $300 used but it's great for low light, Macro obviously and portrait and general photography. I would use mine for street photography on 5D and 5DSR cameras and it was all I needed
The complaints about bent pins with CF cards are mostly due to low-quality generic-brand card readers. Just be sure to get a decent reader from a reputable manufacturer and you'll never have a problem. Love my 5d2 and will never part with it; that sensor really is special.
11:10 CF Cards are not really needed: you can easily get an SD adaptor for the Canon 5D mkII, which is what I did and it works perfectly fine, while you can easily transfer images through any Computer SD slot.
I even bought a couple of Toshiba Flash Air SD cards, and the camera can even transfer files on the go with my phone as any modern mirrorless with a WiFi.
I also notice a peculiarity of the 5D MkII sensor: it seems to be able to correctly record the specific tile/turquise range of the sky, which is almost impossible for me with many other cameras I have, including the more modern RP, Olympus and Panasonic. This is the reason why I'm always in awe when I see a sky picture taken with the 5D MkII. The only other camera that could replicate that colour was my old, trusty EOS 450D/Rebel XSi/ EOS Kiss X2
that's right, the transmission of blue - green shades is the most difficult task for a sensor, as well as, for example, for monitors of various standards. In inexpensive smartphones, for example, today you will not see the full range of shades of the sea , as a rule, everything will go blue. And I like the first 5D even more in this transfer of shades. and if you take a 10d pentax, it will surprise you immensely. It has an additional processor for working with color. Although it has only 10mp and iso workers up to 400
Good point, as you just leave the CF-adapter in-camera and remove only the SD card which avoids any risk of bending the CF pins.
Interesting. My potential k200d used the same sensor as the K10d. It was good looking but very very inconvenient. The 6D was a world apart but still great looking. @@photo1416
I started off with mirrorless and purchased a few DSLRs and started to lose interest in all the new cameras on the market. On my Pentax k70 I’ve captured colors straight out of camera I can’t easily achieve with my Panasonic s5ii. Call me lazy but I always shoot raw + JPG but usually just do a small tweak to the JPGs. With a DSLR I love the feeling of the mechanical shutter and mirror slap. It feels like I’m actually taking a picture. To many it does not make sense but these older cameras provide me more inspiration to shoot more.
I just traded a mirrorless and went back to a dslr. The ergonomics are superb (for me) and the joy of a long battery life is back 😂 I still have a little mirrorless that is practically pocketable but do love my new to me dslr again
DSLR forever!!!
5Dii and 1Ds3 were the last canon bodies to utilize old bayer matrix (legendary canon colors). Newer models changed it in pursuit of ISO performance. I work on R5 as it fits my workflow the best, but for slower work and most importantly the joy of it, I use 1Ds3 set to JPG and profiled for my needs. It just with a little experience, produces awesome photos out of the body, without those countless hours of editing afterwards. Of course you can't get as far with it as a person who spends 1 hour on a single photo in Photoshop, but it's a different type of use here. I simply love the results 1Ds3 spits out.
@@michalsierzchula same here, 10/10. 5D4 and 5Ds are similar but not as good. 1ds3 for me is the best canon camera to this day. Need to check the 1Dx lineup but I’m very impressed how good the 17yo camera can be.
Fascinating. What of the 6D? It was a funky difference but also different from the rest at the time.
Martin,great video as usual. Your success with the mark 2 is very easily explained, You and the camera are one,, the images you produce with that camera just shows that. Spectacular. I perform almost as good( note almost ) with my D850, we are just connected. Your work has impressed me since the first video. Your portrait work is stellar, please keep the videos coming.
I watched this when I came out but on my phone. I decided to watch it again on my computer and I am glad I did. These images are great! I have never owned a 5D2 but I do own two 6D bodies. So, I just mentally substitute 6D whenever you say 5D2. I assume they are about 98% equivalent. Even though I have transitioned to Olympus for most of my needs, I am not only keeping my Canon gear, but I just bought a couple of EF lenses.
Thanks yes i put the 6d and 5d mark ii on par with each other so see everything i say as interchangeable
I see what you mean about color science. I do a lot of dance photography in difficult lighting conditions. Before I bought an Eos R I rented an R6 mk1 and had a lot of work to correct the colors compared to my 6D. Colors and general result of the R are much closer to the 6D. Very important for me. The R is now my 2nd camera, and only with EF glass. But my 6D with 70-200 f4 IS is still unbeatable. Anyway, thanks for the always interesting information in your videos!
There is no "why" about this camera, only when and where. It is an iconic giant amongst cameras.
I had this camera for two years and I hated every second of it. It was an upgrade from my 50d which was my first “nice” camera. I felt bad because I spend so much money on the 5d mk ii and I didn’t enjoy the experience. At first I thought I was doing something wrong, but over time I just realized it wasn’t the camera for me. I’m glad you enjoy the camera and I know there are plenty of others that feel the same.
thats fair enough, not everything is right for everyone for sure!
For me it was a mixed feelings as the images were quite nice from it, but banding and noise killed it for me. I've changed it to 6D, which was miles better, even though it had funky colors and high contrast and then to 1Ds3, which to this day is one of my favourite cameras. I don't shoot it much nowadays but each time just feels special. I've wanted to convert it to IR but couldn't find a clear glass filters for it :|
The fact is it was very affected by poor dynamic range and noise performance. In good light it produced good images, it was very challenged if there were exposure issues that needed correction. The issue was caused by some circuitry being "off sensor", connected with an array of buses that generated heat, and hence all this horrible magenta noise and banding. Sony sensors of the day were not designed like this, the circuitry was either on, or very close to the sensor, giving considerably cleaner files. It wasn't until Canon went to its CR3 raw files Like 1DXmk iii or the 90D, that the situation was addressed.
@ if you used it as a film camera and underexposed it a bit, it produced amazing colors. Just like a slide film would. High contrast, crushed blacks and vivid but creamy colors. It was not good in other situations, but in this one it was one of the best in class, and it’s still. Nowadays cameras have more latitude but not as much charm.
@@matuszewskistudioYep, good light and not trying to recover shadows. Let them fall naturally and choose your exposure for the look you want. Don't be afraid to lose the shadows or the highlights if they don't matter. Having everything visible means it's lower macro contrast, and often more boring.
Always love the Simplicity and clarity of thought…great stuff..!
Another excellent video, thanks Martin. Have the Canon 5dii and 6d and prefer the 5d for landscapes overall. 70-200 f4 IS is likely to be my next lens. Like you say, excellent bang for buck, gets consistently good reviews. Just trying not to spend money too quickly!
You are spot on. I love my 5D classics and mark ii cameras and the lenses you discuss are great to.
The 5D Mark II was my first full frame camera. I loved that camera. There's a special quality to photos from that camera. It's got soul. I still regret selling it and may pick one up soon.
I am soo glad I found your channel. I have a 5D Mark II since years and i did not changed to anything new due my budget limitation, and each time I read about specs of new cameras I was not quite happy about my camera. What you said changed my perspective. Thank you for this! I'm using it with a 50mm f1.4 mainly
I have two of them, still tanks still love them. The color science is incredible
I’ve got a mint 5D mkii with less than 1000 shutter count also have the 24-105 f4. Unfortunately it doesn’t get much use as the Olympus OM1 is my go to camera owing to its size, weight and image stabilisation. But I really love the build quality and ergonomics of the Canon.
Considering mine had 250k on it before I gave it away, I'd say you've got plenty of life left on it!
I completely agree! Despite the fact that I have shot with many cameras, I still use Canon mk1. Although the Nikon z6 or Canon 6d mk2 is much better in terms of characteristics. But this is only in theory. In practice, for some reason, if possible, I want to shoot everything on a Canon mk1, Canon 6d or Nikon D700.
After my yesterday shooting in the Alps with both of my cameras I got a huge boost to learn more about color.
I've been shooting a 5D Mark II since it came out. I keep thinking I should upgrade to the Mark IV. Given your perspective I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Love CF cards & Love this channel. 😀
I'm such a fan of the fact that you still encourage people to use these older bodies. I have thousands of dollars in glass and I still prefer to do most of my shooting(and find that my best shots come from) my beater d700 that I paid $180 for.
D700 is just so pleasing always
@@MartinCastein It is. I find that compared to 6d/5dc/5dii it doesn't perform as outstandingly in some circumstances but has shown itself to be so reliable that I reach for it before anything else. I'm planning to grab an 85 1.4d to pair with it at some time in the near future, I'm very excited to see how they perform together. I'd be interested to see your thoughts on lenses to pair with some of these classic full frame bodies and some shots with each. I know you've covered 85mm and 50mm focal lengths specifically but I'd be really interested to see you look at some more exotic glass.
I still go back to the 6d for nature photography, it's better dynamic range makes it a bit easier to get good photos. The colors of the 5d mkii is so nice though.
What you said about Canon color science is spot-on. Most are actually using adobe color science.
Well...I have a Canon R6 and had the bright idea of buying a Nikon D700....I can't say what is it with that "old" camera but...I can't get enough of the results..
Still dreaming of getting that camera... one day. Thank you again!
Great video, I have a mint Canon 5D mk2 with less than 1500 shutter actuations on it, just sits in a box with its battery grip and a 17-40 lens, as I use just rangefinders now. Completely agree with everything you said about it. Nice to see the old girl getting some love! Will be trying to move the Canon on I think to someone who will love it again. Loving your channel. Subbed.
I used to own the 5D Mk ii, a great camera no doubt and I still miss it. The reason why i shifted to mirrorless is that DSLRs (+ lenses etc.) were sometimes just too heavy for my hiking, particularly high altitude ones...
Thank you. You’ve answered some questions I have. 👍👍
Great Video once again bought the 5D mk II because of your videos
I got the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR a couple of months back to replace my old 24-85G for use on my D600. Just that confidence that the VR gives you that your image will be sharp handheld makes a big difference to the experience of a day out taking pictures. You can just forget about a tripod for well lit situations with reasonable shutter speeds and be sure of getting the details sharp.
I have the same camera and the same lenses. I'm an old guy but a new photographer. Your video made me feel validated in my choices. I'm waiting for Canon to make an R5/R6 type camera with technology the OM-1 mark II has available. Until then I'll work on the basics and enjoy the great images I'm getting.
Thank you for a very interesting video. BTW I know what you mean about “not all sensors being the same” and “RAW is not RAW” all the time. I have two cameras from the same manufacturer. Same sensor size, same colour science but one has a newer processor and more RAM. The colours on the newer camera are just richer, the image quality is simply better.
I wanted one of these when they came out but couldn’t afford one. I eventually picked one up “by mistake” on eBay. It’s a really decent camera and I love shooting it, even though I have access to some “ better” cameras.
I completely agree about shooting RAW not a fix to colors and rendering. I've said before my Nikon D750 was a phenomenal camera, but its RAW output was lacking in both blue and green shades. Grass looked completely fake out of camera and so did skies. I spent far too much time fixing its colors and I finally traded it in. Fuji has nice colors but the controls are not my cup of tea at all. So here I am in 2024 looking at Canon 5D II and 6D I, along with D600 and D700 Nikons. Still can't choose. I absolutely love 5D II colors in photos from so many photographers, and yes I know they're edited photos so not a true representation of SOOC colors. However, when dozens and dozens of photos look great across a spectrum of many images, it's a confidence builder that the camera itself has a great stage to perform on, so to speak. I can spot a Nikon D750 or newer image quickly if it has a lot of greens (leaves, grasses, plants) or a lot of sky present. Some have overcome the issue with great editing, but most do not and a look through FLICKR demonstrates that. Do the same with a 5D II and 6D I, and that issue isn't present at all. Actually, their colors are far more pleasant in comparison.
Thanks for these videos Martin. I've learned so much from your hard work, one video at a time. Your lack of bias for Nikon or Canon allows you to tell those of us with less experience all about their good and bad qualities without "go buy this" pushes. Really respect what you do and how you approach it. Like a scholar.
Interesting, D750 was my first camera, then I bought Canon R6 II and didn't like the files and like many others, the editing in Adobe's programs was pain for me.
With the D750 I did not need much editing, interesting, but gives me some thoughts, maybe because I started learning on the D750 made it so I did not see its flaws.
@@grom5756 Very well could be regarding learning on the D750. That probably provided your basis for measuring others against. For me it was my 4th camera and I was in a hunt for the right fit for me. It was my first full frame, but I chose it based on all its other features like the autofocus, speed, ISO invariance, low light capabilities....everything else basically. It is an amazing camera. I did about 15K photos per year and time showed me that my nature photos were requiring a ton of work to get the greens to look natural and skies to look real. For other photos it wasn't very noticeable, but skin tones were more orange in the sun than I liked, on top of those other issues. I just found I didn't like its color output in raw as a starting point. Fuji and Olympus do it way better for me, but I'm not a fan of tiny cameras or those clunky controls on Fuji. So here I am looking at the 5D II for its file output and hoping I can just deal with its other weaknesses in dynamic range and AF.
Another great video! I totally agree with you re: color/RAW; my sports setup is a Canon 1DX with a Nikon D4S and D800. The Canon photos always just "fall into place", and I have to fight when editing the Nikons, and I'm rarely 100% happy with the results. If i didn't prefer Nikon ergonomics, I would switch completely 🙂
on nikon F mount, get the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 (latest version). Better optically than the nikon 16-35/4, weighs less, often costs less.
I still shoot a Nikon F2 Photomic. I come here just to look at your gorgeous photos. Lol 😊😊
I previously shot all my work on film, 35mm and MF and and then my daughter gave me her Canon 600D (which I had bought for her) and I felt like I was cheating and figured that's how everyone became a photographer....just like that! 🤣 am now getting an old 5d MK II as I jump up to full frame. I nearly went Fuji mirrorless but the viewfinder made me feel like I was looking at a miniture TV. Optical viewfinder I cannot live without. Thank the Gods for adapters though!
Do you have any video about sensor sizes and your preference and reasons? It would be interesting to watch. I'm thinking about going with Fuji, but the lack of full frame sensor is a concern
I don’t specifically have a video about that but what concerns you?
@@MartinCastein I would like to know the differences, mostly about the "look". I was thinking that for the same composition the compression is different because you need other focal length or the depth of field is different because you need to step back with a smaller sensor.
About the concern. I like the look I get when using my 6D. I always thought it was because it's full frame, my other bodies are APSC. So I'm afraid an APSC sensor cannot give me the same. It's the fear of missing something maybe.
Martin, once again, your well-explained, heart-felt view point may help some that haven't owned different combinations of gear. On the same subject, but with a slightly different angle, the following scenario also can not "just be fixed in post". For my amateur shooting of outdoor portraits or indoor sports, one of my favorite primes is the 200mm f2. This is for many reasons, but when you want subject separation, and smooth out-of-focus backgrounds, or need the light - nothing I own matches it (Not even the Nikon 105mm f1.4). Now I don't own the 135mm f1.8 PLENA, but I hear it's a bit different as well. My point here - and thanks for baring with my long winded explanation, is that my mirrorless body enables me to have a much better experience, both in shooting and reviewing the photos that other bodies like the DSLR D700/D850 etc. Part of this might be technique, but my keeper rate is much higher on th4 Nikon Z9 than the DSLRs. This frees me up to become involved with my subject, rather than worry about hitting focus. Point is, there are bodies that provide a "special" rendering to some (i.e. Canon 1D Classic, Nikon D700) with certain genres, but then other bodies that work for other projects. Part of it is emotional, part of it is physical, but you just can't recreate everything in post - including the experience you have while shooting with that camera. Once again, nicely done.
yes i agree with all of this, i mean i wouldnt want to be shooting the canon 85mm 1.2 on the 5d mark ii, its a hellish experience and id rather just get that setup on a mirrorless body. It all depends as always and also as you say certain lenses cant be replaced.
@@MartinCastein We see eye to eye (and lens to lens) ;-) Your thoughts are always appreciated. Keep up your special work! I very much enjoy hearing you make your arguements.
chào anh, tôi sử dụng nikon d300 và d800 nhưng màu sắc nó không như tôi mong muốn, tôi thấy ảnh của anh rất thích nó, hy vọng anh có thể làm 1 video chi tiết về cách anh hậu kỳ, chỉnh sửa vài tấm ảnh chụp chân dung trên file nikon. cám ơn anh rất nhiều.
I bought a 5DSR 2nd hand ... with a Samyang 135mm F2 pure bliss . Though i wish the live screen was moveable
Fascinating stuff. Thank you.
Thank you for your work!
I bought my daughter a D700 and she very quickly bent (and then broke) one of the card slot pins. It took me hours to fit a new board and since then we don't ever remove the card and always use a USB cable to extract the files instead.
I picked one up last week with a 50mm 1.8 stm and 100mm f2 USM for portrait use. Less than $400 invested.
Still have my 5D MII, and had the 7D which died a while back.
I used to use the Canon 5D MkII many years ago, especially for landscapes photography and professional video assingments. But eventually upgraded it to the Nikon D800 for stills photography, which is far, far better quality than the 5D Mk2
I have d800 as well choosing something different. The d800 is “better” image quality but I prefer the 5d ii images. Both great cameras.
@@MartinCastein I loved the 5D2 at the time, but found the images tended to be very 'digital'-looking and harsh compared to the amazing depth of the D800/D810/D850 sensors. The Nikon handling is far better in my view and reminds me of my old Nikon F5. (I also own a couple of Panasonic cameras). But in the end it's all down to personal taste of course. My main reason for switching away from Canon was that as much as I liked the 'L' lenses, I preferred the build quality and glass of the legendary Nikkors.
Build quality of the Nikons is like it’s meant for war they are so tough
@@MartinCastein Especially the original crinkle finish AF-D lenses.
Gret video Martin, I love my 24-105 but I'm considering selling my 17-35 It's not what I was expecting, I bought it for working in smaller venues for gig photography.
you probably want the 17-40 for a wide
I forgot about the cmos sensor.
It’s , well said limited? But the canon colors though.
And yes. That’s a thing. Imho I feel that Nikon looks. Clinical? It’s accurate.
But I went back to film. So i have Kodak colors. 😂
Nice line up of glass. 👌🏻 and including the Nifty Fifty. I think that’s a remnant from the 80’s.
Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m gonna look forward to some landscapes.
I didn't quite get the lens you mentioned whether it was 17 or 70, in any case, the 70-200 f4 IS lens is very expensive, I found some in the region of £250 and £389 quite frankly unless you are a professional photographer who takes pictures for a living the lens is way too expensive, at least for me.
I have the 6D and the 5D Mark III cameras, I used to have the 5D Mark I. Which was also a great camera.
Amazing Stuff as always Mate.
I myself got the 6D Mk1, partially because of your channel as well, and I absolutely love that thing 🤩
Got me a Nifty Fifty for it and upgraded with the 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4 and it is just so much fun 😁
Sure some modern stuff is missing, but for me and my hobby it is just amazing 😊
Got a d800 myself, and I like its image better than my sony mirrorless tbh. It just has character and 3d pop, modern lenses seem to be uncanny in its sharpness. I mean I don't see stuff that sharp with my eyes.
I know and sharp doesnt mean good, i think i experienced this when i saw 4k video on tv the first time in the nature documentaries and thought no, thats not for me. Also tv series that have spanned the film to digital transition, you can see it there. Yes its sharper but it doesnt look as good.
thank you for the effort and sharing. i am an appreciative subscriber to your YT channel. a question: you were demoing your process using Live View. is that how you photograph using the 5D mk2, Live View rather than the optical viewfinder? as always, BIG thumbs up.
For landscapes mostly, i use the rear screen a lot on RUclips to show what I’m doing too, but for landscapes almost entirely the rear screen but not for portraits, then I use the viewfinder but might use the live view to set exposure
Hello Martin. Love your videos. I have not used with the Canon 16-35 IS or the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR, but according to the specs, the Canon lens weighs 21.7 ounces and the Nikon weighs 23.9. This is roughly a 10% difference. Are you thinking of the Nikon 14-24 lens instead?
I actually looked it up after recording and found the same. I think it must be that the Nikon one is front heavy or something because it always feels much heavier like a lump of a lens to me, I’d still absolutely use it though.
My backup body is a 5Dii, and it handles anything (except autofocus speed + high ISO) if my 1DX ever fails... which I doubt it ever will LOL
Why? Because it's one of the best cameras ever made!
Great video, I’ve come across your content a few times and today I hit subscribe. I’m still using my 5D Mark iii and have been considering upgrading everything to mirrorless. It’s kind of a sad feeling and exciting at the same time. I don’t think I’ll get rid of it if I do upgrade.
sure, and i think it depends on what you do, especially if you photograph people that are moving i think mirrorless makes complete sense for that, for instance if i were shooting weddings again id definitely go for mirrorless as focus speed trumps everything.
@@MartinCastein I appreciate the insight! I shoot portraits and family lifestyle. The thought of autofocus would be a dream instead of aiming my focus point at a toddler running towards me haha.
@@KaylaIveigh oh for you you should be using mirrorless 100%, the difference for me is just autofocus and video, if you are tracking moving irratic stuff or in difficult conditions then mirrorless and dont look back. For outdoor portraits of adults etc its a different story.
@@KaylaIveigh Eyetracking is probably one of the biggest wins with mirrorless. Canon DSLR lenses seem to work very well on their mirrorless range with the right adapter.
I love my Mark2 but it suffers from cheap glass and user error. When this camera hit the shops it changed the way that Hollywood worked, check out the number of movies that featured it. Cheers mate.
That'll teach you to pay attention to which account you're logged into. Numpty.
Thanks!
Thank you!
I was working with a pair of 1Ds Mark III on weddings loooong after everyone upgraded to the "latest and greatest" from Canon. I tried the 5D Mark IV for a while but hated the files. Too cold and clinical and needed boatloads of work to get the colors where I wanted them. Modern Canons are still not there. The R8 (which is one of the cameras I am using now) has that modern Canon look (a bit weird, maybe too accurate. Can't put my finger on it) but it is fairly neutral so I can usually profile it to get the look I want. That said, when I take my oldies out for a spin (especially the 40D) I just know instantly what Canon has lost down the road. But to be fair, so has Adobe. A lot of the color science is also pleasing profiles made with great efforts and somtime around 2015-2016 Adobe decided to kill the vibrant warm colors for Canon. Even Adobe Standard looks heaps better on the old-timers.
Thank you for sharing and well said as always .
In general terms regarding raw , it's useful for professional photographers that are commercially hired & the SD card is given to an editing team , for general everyday photography in raw is by far overused & is completely unnecessary & not all professionals shoot on raw .
In general all camera manufactures invest millions in research & development to produce a perfect (Joint Photographic Experts Group ) image and there are many reasons for this , unfortunately I simply don't have the time to explain , but you can review this online .
Raw images are intended for commercial purposes & for the main part rather like bracketing Raw edits can look somewhat unnatural , this is often addressed by the photographers that shoot 120 film regarding the art of true landscape photography as in capturing the moment without tampering , but I do understand that all this is subjective & each to their own .
Regarding the run of the mill main camera manufactures & what image quality is the best ?, there's a simple rule , Canon makes printers , Sony makes tv's , Fujifilm makes 35mm film , ( Nikon makes cameras ) .
Unfortunately my Canon R5 doesn’t have that canon magic colour out of the box. Well at least I don’t think so. My 6D has it so I know what to look for.
Excellent.... 😀
Hi Martin, is it worth buying cheap flashes vs expensive Nikon flash?
I’d get used sb910 flashes for Nikon
This is THE Digital Camera of all time in the Canon's range.
Actually yes I think you are right
Martin I have a question about the video... When someone gets a 5D mark II, shouldn't he go with a 24-70 f2.8 because of the limitation that you metioned before (dynamic range/exposures)? Wouldn't help the extra light that absorbs the f2.8 in what file you'll get in the end (especialy in these older dslrs)? Also, when someone looks in used lenses can see so little difference in the price if the result is superior in the final image... let's say that f4 is about 400e and f2.8 is at 550...
And the same question goes along for the 70-200 f2.8 or f4...
it depends if you are going to shoot at 2.8 or not, if you are buying the f4 you get excellent image quality in a much lighter lens, for instance for landscapes im more like to be at f8 even so 2.8 is pointless, if you are shooting people the 2.8 lenses make more sense unless you are in a studio where you can control light but the 2.8 might be the look you want. For landscape for me the 2.8 offers no benefit over the f4. Answer is, it depends.
@@MartinCastein Yes! I was thinking about a set like this:
a) 16-35 f4 (for Landscape)
b) but... 24-70 f2.8 (for people)
c) ---> and a macro lens... I think 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6... I dont know for the f2.8... but I wonder If you want to take a picture let's say of "the iris of the eye", should there a f2.8 be more efective?? Or the f4 is capable also for that kind of stuff?
(Ι feel confused about the "c" option... what do you think... any advice should be very useful...)
@@johnnathan2149 yeah thats a sensible list of options and what i would do as well, i think the C option sort of needs to be C and D because deciding between a macro or a 70-200 are two different categories which is probably why C feels confusing. Split C into C and D so 70-200 and a macro and get whichever you need most first and the other. later.
Okay here's a dumb question Martin...In Lightroom, using cameras with limited DR, do you bother turning on the highlight clipping? or do you just edit the values of the photo by eye. I hate the fact that i have to slam the highlights to negative 100 on a lot of images that are exposed properly for middle values to completely eliminate the HL clipping. Is it better to think of it as film where an image will inevitably have pure white and pure black in areas?
This is a hard question to answer like this and its a video i need to make. To try and think of a simple answer, you should be aiming to make the picture look the way you want it to and not trying to fit some idea of non blown highlights or whatever. If you like the highlights blown then do that. but there arent many ways to get the info from the file without doing something that achieves that if you want the highlights. I edit by eye though, I will use the clipping points sometimes as a reference if im not sure. The answer is it doesnt matter as long as you get the result you like.
@@MartinCastein Thanks Martin, I've gotten a bit obsessive about it. Canon is notorious for that white sky effect which I think you've alluded to in other videos and I think I just need to start with clipping turned off so I can look at an image for what it is as i am editing instead of focusing on making sure nothing is clipping because it feels like a fool's errand. As long as the main subject isn't blown out/clipping, it probably doesn't matter. Thanks for the insight! I thought it was odd I could recover highlights easier on my 5Dc than on my 6d2 but it's more likely that the larger sensor is just picking up more colors/gradation thus it's a much more gradual transition when backing off the highlights than the steeper cliff of less colors/pixels of the 5D
It depends on how much editing you want to do. But if you use your histogram when you are setting your exposure, if you want nothing to blow in the picture you can just make sure the far right hand side of your histogram does peak. That will mean raising the shadow areas, depending on how much contrast is in the scene you might be better off taking one exposure for the mid ones and one for the sky and blending after. That would get you a well balance picture. Depends on what you want, or you can let the sky go, its really up to you in the end.
@@MartinCastein thanks for the insight Martin, always appreciated! I did some comparisons this weekend between the canon 5dc and my 6d2; the differences weren't as extreme as I thought they would be with the latter just needing the tint adjusted less green more magenta and the saturation/vibrance knocked down a tad
thats good, if you can get it pretty close then great really!
I love my 5Dm2 colors. When I went to the R5 I was like what the hell. I also have an R3 and it's much better, it has 'Canon Colors.' It's super important to use the 'Camera Standard' color profile in LRC. I hardly need to touch my files in editing. I shot for years with the 5Dm2 with the 17-40mm and. Sigma 50mm, and the 135mm. I still use EF lenses with the R3 and R5, they have a more organic look than the RF lenses. I know people think that is strange, but I'm sure you understand.
I do understand, also I have an r3 as well and think the same as you
I also use the EF lenses on it for the look.
Fascinating regarding the R5 and R3. Wonder how the R6 and R6 2 fit in there. I've got the 5D classic and 6D and jumped up to the R6 after the screen died on the 6D. I haven't seen a glaring color issue but there might be some small extra stuff to the older one.
@@MartinCasteinWoah, when's the video on that? Didn't you have a Z9??
@@mikafoxx2717 I decided over a year ago to spend at least 6 months using canon nikon and sony for my actual work to see which i liked most. The progression was sony nikon canon and now im back with nikon. All are very capable but i wanted to find what I liked the most then go into that.
There's nothing wrong with the camera, I have over 400,000 acts on my body.
I suppose as long as you don't do much photography with things that move. It still is a great camera. But if you have any interest in mixed subjects, and you don't get a smoking, great deal on this body, you're doing yourself a real disservice by not experiencing Much faster. Auto focus.
(especially with older adapted glass, even something like a 500 F4. Mark two.)
I'm a life long Nikon shooter but last year I got a great deal on a very low shutter count 5D II and got a couple standard prime lenses for it and looking to dedicate it as my portrait set-up once I get a 135 and 85mm. However you may have convinced me to add a couple zooms to the kit now that prices are great and then I can have my "day hike" kit. it makes sense really. Like you said, the Canon DSLR colors are unique and something worth trying in the outdoors as well as the kits being slightly lighter than my Nikons... Going to have to look into these lens choices.
🙏
As always the thing stopping me from using the older Canons is the CF card. They are gross and yuck. I have seen some adaptors around, and I wouldn't mind trying one of them some time and then I might look out for a Mk ii deal.
What puts you of compact flash?
@@RichardFraser-y9t I don't like how it plugs in and it's not aesthetic to me. I've bent plenty of pins on it, push it in the wrong way with enough of a rush and bam, bendy banana.
Sure the modern ones might be better, but I'm done with it now
@@RichardFraser-y9t Actually a better way of putting it is it's like going from USB back to serial port. Even if serial mouse worked just fine, no way I'm going back voluntarily
Excellent video! The only reason that I am not unirng my 5d mk ii is my fascination with Minolta Rokkor lenses. From the mirrorless world, the neglected Eos R, that is the mini 5d mkiv, is as close to the mkii, as it can be in the mirrorless world. My most favourite camera for quality is the Canon Eos 1Ds mkii, that has even more filmlike quality, but is quite heavy.
Love the idea of your collection of worn out cameras.. a noble bunch sitting on a shelf knowing they’ve retired and their work is done.. At peace ..!
haha yes, well thats what the shelf is for, the gear i use is in camera bags.
Don't bother with CF cards. Buy a CF=>SD adapter card. Dirt cheap and you just slot your SD cards in it.
Just buy another Canon 6D they are very inexpensive and like you said it's the modern Canon 5D Classic. I still have mine want too get another one they are so inexpensive. I mostly use mirrorless now Eos R And R7 I do want like the R8 or R6 maybe R5 though still very pricey. Still something so special about those 5D 1 2 3 and 6D sensors it's like an kinda of magic. 😂 Canon really deliberately messed up the 6D Mark II though.
If i buy a new one then the one i have might know its dieing so its best not to, unless i hide it. hmmmm.
I recently got a 6d2; what did they mess up?
These cameras have always been good. Ignore the hype and just shoot. Millions of pro images have been shot on 5D mk2 and even classic.
Always been more than good enough…. Maybe look at your own skills rather than a better camera. All the best photographers had way worse cameras 📷 back in the day.
Dynamic range is such an overrated feature of a camera IMHO. The most revered film in history, Kodachrome…had 5-6 drops of DR. A 5d Mk II has 12 stops at base iso. I’m terrible at math, but that’s a HELL of a lot more wiggle room to play with. The limitations of DR I truly believe is one aspect that makes people think the sensors are “magic”. It’s just that you can’t make it look boring and flat. It comes out properly if you expose it right and….drumroll….position yourself according to the light.
Also, the individual color luminance on these older cameras are tuned differently and with intention. Today it just seems like they are all tuned to be perfectly flat so the user can adjust at will.
Thing is, most users don’t do well with too many options.
Why not a D800, it’s so so so much better for Landscapes. Canon for people work Nikon for “things”
Fancied a change really, used Nikon last year probably will next year. I get bored otherwise.
@@MartinCastein haha fair I understand that
Well, think its time to dump all my Nikon gear now Martin lol
Noooo don’t you dare
Really interesting, thanks Martin.
I took my 17-40, 70-200 IS and my 6D on a photo workshop at Cwm Idwal in the Ogwen Valley in mid September.
I was tempted to just take the 24-105 IS, because I enjoy using it so much, and it's really versatile.
However Simon Kitchin, the workshop leader, advised me to take the other two lenses.
I think it was a good call, because the Cwm often demands a very short focal length of around 17-20mm, but also Pen yr Ole Wen and Tryfan photographed as main subjects require 100-150 when photographing from high on the path leading to Devil's Kitchen.
I took the 50mm with me, but I found that the 35-40mm range was sufficient. I also took the L 1.4x teleconverter for the 70-200, but didn't use it...