I was inspired to get the Canon EOS 5d MK.2 that Tek Syndicate showed but I got confused when looking at these two options, body or 240mm lens. I see the prices that easily says get the body but if I get the 5d with lens, I can use it right away. What are the advantages on getting a body or preset lens?
Also what was that software that Tek Syndicate installed over the default software of the 5D?
Lenses that come with the camera usualy suck. They are slow as hell and offer shotty build quility. It is a waste of money. I would recomend buying the body only with a 50mm prime unless your focus is specificly on video. If it is going to be used as a camcorder, than go with the kit.
A prime 240mm lens?? Um, no one makes a lens with that focal length with a Canon EF mount, anyways, you're better of getting the 5D Mark III with the 24-105mm lens (fantastic lens) but if you're a bit cheap, go with the older Mark II with the 24-105mm lens. Or choose another zoom/ some primes. Also, the Sony A7 is an excellent option.
I would get just the body and buy a lens separate, kit lenses are never really that great. Also, what lens you get depends on what type of stuff you plan on taking pictures of.
The lens Logan uses is a 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon lens and is $2300 just for the lens alone.
When it comes to DSLRs, image quality is more about the lens than the camera body. Which camera body you get certainly matters, but the lens has a bigger effect on image quality than most people realize. You could have the best camera body in the world, but if your lens is crap then it's bottlenecking your camera sensor's potential.
Invest in a good Lenses, the body is secondary, unless you need pro-features like ridiculously fast focus. I recommend full-frame, but you'll spend 2-3 times as much money because full-frame lenses are pricey
if you want to just make really good quality video/photos get a
5D mk2, 6D or 5D mk3 with
Cannon 24-105 F4 IS L or Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for general purpose
Cannon 50mm f1.4 USM for when it's dark or nice background blur
Samyang 14mm F2.8 manual focus, for the wide end,
Nice to have is also:
Canon 70-200 F4 L IS for tele
100mm F2.8 Marco IS L for closeups
For you to get the best video quality you will need to use the
Magic lantern Firmware (releases the full potential of the camera)
One little fault about the 5Dmark2 is the auto-focus system is ancient: expect to have about 20-30% out of focus photos if you plan to do photography with moving Subjects, (it's absolutely unsuited for sports-photography). The 5D mark3 has a killer auto-focus.
Auto-focus for video isn't usable on any camera that can blur the background, subject tracking is currently too unreliable.
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is cheaper than Canon and absolutely destroys it in video quality, but it's very hard to use, requires a lot of know how and it's useless for Photography.
The 5D mk1 can't do video.
Remember Nikon & Sony make nice Cameras too, i just know nothing about those
If you're just looking to make very nice pictures/videos and don't care to dive deep into photography/videography, forget everything i just said and get
Canon 70D with a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM
Maybe instead of the 70-200mm lens, he could go for the 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM Lens, pretty good deal and then spend the rest on a prime.
the 70-300mm L is not a good deal
better to get 70-200 F4 constant Aperture and buy the 400mm F5.6 L
there also is a 70-300 non L consumer version, which can be usable if you happen to get lucky and get a good sample
besides the greater the Zoom factor
2.85X for the 70-200 vs 4.3X for the 70-300
the worse Image quality gets: Rule of thumb -> Don't go over 3X
I had a 400mm prime, & I sold it because I never used it, Unless you do wildlife or photography you'll never need anything above 200mm. Especially since you'll need a high shutter-speed (at 300mm -> 1/300s) to get sharp pictures, And at F5.6 you are limited to bright sunshine.
What are you planning on using the camera for first of all?
A kit lens is not a bad starter if you're inexperienced or your target lens is out of your price range at the moment
Edit: Also, that body and kit lens together is going to take a hell of a lot better looking photos than the low-mid range DSLRs that the majority of people own...even if they have different glass
I was never talking about the L version. :|
You could get the 24-70 (old) for around 1300-1500$, the new one is is 2300$ (and don't get the 24-70 F4)
If you are buying a camera of that price you should get a better lens than stock. Its like bottle necking.
Actually, just get the 6D, it's slightly cheaper and overall better.
Really guys? The thread is 8months old