Jorge Garcia , Feb 08, 2009; 11:35 a.m.
I am debating on which camera to purchase. Not sure if I need all the bells and whistles of the Mark II, the resolution upgrade is nice but now I need larger capacity CF cards and more Hard Drive space. My objective is to own two full frame bodies and be able to provide my clients with a least an 11x14 print if they were to ask. I own a 30D and a 5D. Anyone contemplating the same and hoping to pick one up before they're all gone? Thank you for your responses.
Douglas Lee 
, Feb 08, 2009; 11:50 a.m.
Does your current 5D do all you need it to do? If yes, then get another one.
Chris Whitcomb 
, Feb 08, 2009; 11:59 a.m.
Your decision needs to be based on your particular needs and how will the investment be returned. If all of your brides are asking for 11x14 prints, and you can't give them that from your current equipment, then it makes financial sense to invest in the new body. As a side note, we just received a 24x36 print made with the 30d and it is beautiful, so I'm not sure your initial assessment of your current equipment is accurate. However, based on the two options, I would go with the 5d and a new lens for the same price as the 5dmk2. I do not own this camera but I'm really blown away that such old technology is still holding its own against the Nikon FF bodies but also the new Canon FF bodies especially shooting raw. Just some things to consider.
David Bell , Feb 08, 2009; 12:53 p.m.
I have a 5D. 11x14 prints are easily within the abilities of the 5D, much more so in fact. The only reason I would consider upgrading to the 5DII, would be for the improved high ISO performance. Nothing else really.
Sergey Usik 
, Feb 08, 2009; 01:19 p.m.
You will get up to iso 25000 with Mark2. I'd love the fact that I could make a shot in low light situation with the shutter speed that I could hold my camera still rather than having 30D or 5D Mark 1 being not able to make that shot for the numbers of reason - shutter speed too low or iso that high that you will have noise comes all over your photos. It's always better to have 21Mp rather 12Mp in order to make good noise reduction also.
David Wegwart - Denver/CO. 
, Feb 08, 2009; 02:40 p.m.
If $$$ are not the issue, the mk2 is better. Seems more consistent in the AF dept and better by about 1 - 1.5 stops in ISO performance. It focuses faster in lower light, which in practice seems more critical than the higher ISO's IMO.
File size is bit overcooked but is nice for the occasional crop.
I don't really agree with Sergey (not to be contrary) on the larger files giving lower noise though. I believe if they had use a 16mp or less sensor, then applied the same R&D to the noise, you would have an effectively clean 6400iso and a useable 12800. 12800 as of now, is not useable unless you plan for B&W's.
Sergey Usik , Feb 08, 2009; 03:34 p.m.
David I was talking about an idea of shooting in 21Mp mode then making noise reduction with LR or PS and then reduction size to 12Mp would give a great noise reduction results. I guess
David Wegwart - Denver/CO. , Feb 08, 2009; 05:19 p.m.
Sergey,
I see where your coming from. I guess it is better from that POV. I am just comparing a D700 file, and for a comparable sized image at 6400iso, the D700 looks better IMO. Just think the "smaller" sensors have better handling of the noise/color. However, compared to the original 5D, its is better for sure.
Jorge Garcia , Feb 08, 2009; 07:00 p.m.
My thoughts exactly Chris. Thanks for everyone's input.
David Wegwart - Denver/CO. , Feb 11, 2009; 12:06 p.m.
Chris Whitcomb wrote:
"I do not own this camera but I'm really blown away that such old technology is still holding its own against the Nikon FF bodies but also the new Canon FF bodies especially shooting raw".
Firstly, I do own this camera, and the Nikon FF's. I am afraid that noise wise at least, the Canon 5D mk1 or 2 don't hold their own, any more than a 40D does against the 5d1. I have played with the files and find them to be richer coming from the Nikons.
As a side note: I got the 5d2 expecting/hoping for even better noise than the D700/D3's. However, after using them both in "real world" settings, the Canon files don't hold up so well IMVHO. Not distant, just not as nice.
In this case the newer tech of the 5d2 should be leaving the D3/D700 tech behind as it is the newer technology. The D3/D700 sensor was intro'd in October of 07. That's an age of difference in terms of Sensor development.
To me this signifies a flip-flop in the lead place for low noise. I expect that by the end of this year, the D400 will be at least as good as the present 5d2 for noise and then a year on a D4 will clean up with usable 12800.
Speculation mostly, but based on where things are, and have come from.
All this said, if you want the 5D2, and you have Canon glass, you will not be disappointed in its improvements for sure. I think its a great camera, but not as ground breaking as the original, unless you are shooting it for the video capabilities.
Best, D.
