Canon 5Dii 24-105mm for £2,029 @ Jacobs Digital + Quidco - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Get it while you can!
£200 cheaper then anywhere else.

If you know about cameras there is nothing more to say about this one

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_5D_Mark_II/

enjoy!
Deal Tags:
More From Jacobs Digital:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
colonel Avatar
6y, 1d agoFound 6 years, 1 day ago
Options

All Comments

(82) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Not trying to start an argument but..

Is this worth 500-1000 more compared to Pentax K-5 (not full frame) or Sony A850 (full frame) though... both would leave significant change from the 2k .. A850 body costs 1.5k K-5 kit costs 1k
#2
Amazing deal. I don't think Quidco are offering cashback on Jacobs at the moment though. I just had a quick look and it says:

0% for temporarily unavailable, will be back soon
#3
Conqueror
Not trying to start an argument but..Is this worth 500-1000 more compared to Pentax K-5 (not full frame) or Sony A850 (full frame) though... both would leave significant change from the 2k .. A850 body costs 1.5k K-5 kit costs 1k

thats a good question. The pentax k5 is excellent, together with the nikon d7000 and canon 7d

it depends on what you need, but as an FF owner who has occasionaly dabbled in APS-C (nikon d300s and Canon 7D and 550D) I can tell you the quality at the pixel level is unsurpassed, together with the extra DOF.

you can chcek ISO advatnage at DXOMARK

some people don't need this level of quality. the k5 would be good for most people sure, but for me, as a perfectionaist, and someone who likes to do crop blow ups, and predominantly uses primes, there is no other choice really.

lastly, I don't use it, but this thing also does broadcast quality video, the only camera that is currently used by TV stations (BBC, HBO, etc.) to record real programs.

rgds
1 Like #4
Conqueror
Not trying to start an argument but..Is this worth 500-1000 more compared to Pentax K-5 (not full frame) or Sony A850 (full frame) though... both would leave significant change from the 2k .. A850 body costs 1.5k K-5 kit costs 1k

I'll give the annoying answer of 'it depends'.

Purely based on sensor ratings, the Pentax, Canon and Sony are very, very similar. The Pentax, overall, just wins based on the DxO ratings: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Camera-Sensor/Sensor-rankings

Without knowing what kit you already have, it's difficult to justify that extra £1k if starting from scratch. If you've already got Canon gear which will work on a full frame, perhaps the Canon is the way to go. If you're starting from scratch, perhaps you'd be better off with either the Pentax or the Sony and spending the difference on glass. That said of course, if you are starting from scratch, perhaps full frame is complete overkill and you'd be far better off going for a cropped sensor and buying more lenses.
#5
Conqueror
Not trying to start an argument but..

Is this worth 500-1000 more compared to Pentax K-5 (not full frame) or Sony A850 (full frame) though... both would leave significant change from the 2k .. A850 body costs 1.5k K-5 kit costs 1k


That depends in part on why you take photographs; if you sell them then yes; if its a hobby then maybe not......

This camera has an impressive resoluton (which requires expensive lenses to use at its best) and a great low light ability...
#6
bodderz
Conqueror
Not trying to start an argument but..Is this worth 500-1000 more compared to Pentax K-5 (not full frame) or Sony A850 (full frame) though... both would leave significant change from the 2k .. A850 body costs 1.5k K-5 kit costs 1k
I'll give the annoying answer of 'it depends'.Purely based on sensor ratings, the Pentax, Canon and Sony are very, very similar. The Pentax, overall, just wins based on the DxO ratings:http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Camera-Sensor/Sensor-rankingsWithout knowing what kit you already have, it's difficult to justify that extra £1k if starting from scratch. If you've already got Canon gear which will work on a full frame, perhaps the Canon is the way to go. If you're starting from scratch, perhaps you'd be better off with either the Pentax or the Sony and spending the difference on glass. That said of course, if you are starting from scratch, perhaps full frame is complete overkill and you'd be far better off going for a cropped sensor and buying more lenses.

for ISO the 5Dii is 1815, the K5 is 1162, so a different league
#7
I'm amazed at the number of diffrent DSLR cameras around and the prices of them.

Seems to be 10x the selection compared to the old SLR days.

And I wonder just how many are being bought by/for people that would be far better served by instants.

Most decent DSLR's are very heavy & bulky and also are tagets for thieves.

Obviously, the one mentioned here would only by bought by a pro/Semi pro but we seem to be seeing an upsurge in the high end camera sales - Or perhaps we are just seeing an upsurge in interest in photography - Tho I doubt it, somehow.

Perhaps it just appears that way as manuf's keep improving last years models, each time generating greater interest in what they have acheived this year.

Surely this can't continue - Or can it?
#8
colonel
for ISO the 5Dii is 1815, the K5 is 1162, so a different league

Yeah, I was giving overall scores.

Without knowing what Conquerer wants to do with his pictures, it's hard to say.
#9
rizla01
I'm amazed at the number of diffrent DSLR cameras around and the prices of them.Seems to be 10x the selection compared to the old SLR days.And I wonder just how many are being bought by/for people that would be far better served by instants.Most decent DSLR's are very heavy & bulky and also are tagets for thieves.Obviously, the one mentioned here would only by bought by a pro/Semi pro but we seem to be seeing an upsurge in the high end camera sales - Or perhaps we are just seeing an upsurge in interest in photography - Tho I doubt it, somehow.Perhaps it just appears that way as manuf's keep improving last years models, each time generating greater interest in what they have acheived this year.Surely this can't continue - Or can it?

its a hobby. I guess you are either in or out
I used to try and save money on camera bodies, but after having a 5Dii and trying to go back to APS-C bodies I was always disappointed, althought the Canon 7D was the first APS-C camera I ever used that I would be happy to take pictures at ISO 3200

Actually with a prime lens its quite light, at least for me. I have a kata sling bag which is super easy to carry and an optech camera strap which is very comfortable
#10
I was merely probing to get some more justification on this deal and the response was reasonable :D

Me personally... I've got some Panasonic micro 4/3s gear and a tough Sony compact at the moment and may one day get a K-5 (and sell the Pana) which should be enough and the weather sealing is an attraction

Edited By: Conqueror on Dec 03, 2010 11:32
#11
colonel
rizla01
I'm amazed at the number of diffrent DSLR cameras around and the prices of them.Seems to be 10x the selection compared to the old SLR days.And I wonder just how many are being bought by/for people that would be far better served by instants.Most decent DSLR's are very heavy & bulky and also are tagets for thieves.Obviously, the one mentioned here would only by bought by a pro/Semi pro but we seem to be seeing an upsurge in the high end camera sales - Or perhaps we are just seeing an upsurge in interest in photography - Tho I doubt it, somehow.Perhaps it just appears that way as manuf's keep improving last years models, each time generating greater interest in what they have acheived this year.Surely this can't continue - Or can it?
its a hobby. I guess you are either in or outI used to try and save money on camera bodies, but after having a 5Dii and trying to go back to APS-C bodies I was always disappointed, althought the Canon 7D was the first APS-C camera I ever used that I would be happy to take pictures at ISO 3200Actually with a prime lens its quite light, at least for me. I have a kata sling bag which is super easy to carry and an optech camera strap which is very comfortable


Problem is that even I am tempted to get a Super Camera. A high end DSLR.


trouble with this is that I am trying to master the small Panny FZ3 that I bought a few years back, purchaased becasue it was pretty well rated back then, and until I have mastered all of the settings/controls etc I don't feel enough justification for moving up into the DSLR range. I feel that it would be wasted on me.


PLUS, more importantly, I am still learning how to take a good shot. So far only about 1 in 100 are acceptable by me and the rest are poor to plain average.

I guess I am after advice here but would I fare better with, say, a second-hand D40 to start or am I right going the way I am for now?

I feel like I'm paddling accross the channel instead of using a boat.

Edited By: rizla01 on Dec 03, 2010 12:01
#12
The 5D Mkii is starting to look a little dated compared to brand new cameras from the competition (the 7D has a better spec in nearly everything but sensor), but for the portrait/wedding and landscape tog it's still one of the best cameras on the market.

Crop sensors may improve, but they can never offer the same shallow depth of field that a full frame can. (the F4 lens on this camera has the same DOF as a 2.8 would on a crop sensor).

The Canon lens lineup is sooo much better than Pentax IMHO.

Seems likely there'll be a 5D Mkiii next year which will crush the competition in everything but frame rate (gotta keep selling the 1D series).
#13
rizla01
colonel
rizla01
I'm amazed at the number of diffrent DSLR cameras around and the prices of them.Seems to be 10x the selection compared to the old SLR days.And I wonder just how many are being bought by/for people that would be far better served by instants.Most decent DSLR's are very heavy & bulky and also are tagets for thieves.Obviously, the one mentioned here would only by bought by a pro/Semi pro but we seem to be seeing an upsurge in the high end camera sales - Or perhaps we are just seeing an upsurge in interest in photography - Tho I doubt it, somehow.Perhaps it just appears that way as manuf's keep improving last years models, each time generating greater interest in what they have acheived this year.Surely this can't continue - Or can it?
its a hobby. I guess you are either in or outI used to try and save money on camera bodies, but after having a 5Dii and trying to go back to APS-C bodies I was always disappointed, althought the Canon 7D was the first APS-C camera I ever used that I would be happy to take pictures at ISO 3200Actually with a prime lens its quite light, at least for me. I have a kata sling bag which is super easy to carry and an optech camera strap which is very comfortable



Problem is that even I am tempted to get a Super Camera. A high end DSLR.


trouble with this is that I am trying to master the small Panny FZ3 that I bought a few years back, purchaased becasue it was pretty well rated back then, and until I have mastered all of the settings/controls etc I don't feel enough justification for moving up into the DSLR range. I feel that it would be wasted on me.


PLUS, more importantly, I am still learning how to take a good shot. So far only about 1 in 100 are acceptable by me and the rest are poor to plain average.

I guess I am after advice here but would I fare better with, say, a second-hand D40 to start or am I right going the way I am for now?

I feel like I'm paddling accross the channel instead of using a boat.


I wouldn’t worry about how its taking as long you are enjoying learning. The big plus of a DSLR v FZ3 will be a good viewfinder and much better sensor ; you may find this improves many of your pictures (depends on why so many you shot are not acceptable ?). Only 1 acceptable shot for every 100 strikes me as being unusual..

With a DSLR the vast majority (90+ %) of shots should be acceptable imho with problem shots being caused by
- metering being been fooled
- light & dark areas of what you are shooting being too different producing un-acceptable shots
- camera shake
- less than ideal focus point....

and of course just plain poor composition...

a D40 is a good camera but nearly all DSLRs are very good and many models from Canon/Nikon etc are good so I would go for whatever one you can get a good deal on (I would try holding the camera first to see if you like the controls/weight & size etc)
#14
SaltyCDogg
The 5D Mkii is starting to look a little dated compared to brand new cameras from the competition (the 7D has a better spec in nearly everything but sensor), but for the portrait/wedding and landscape tog it's still one of the best cameras on the market.Crop sensors may improve, but they can never offer the same shallow depth of field that a full frame can. (the F4 lens on this camera has the same DOF as a 2.8 would on a crop sensor). The Canon lens lineup is sooo much better than Pentax IMHO. Seems likely there'll be a 5D Mkiii next year which will crush the competition in everything but frame rate (gotta keep selling the 1D series).

actually the centre point focus on the 5dii has been proved to still be the best (with 7 hidden assists, so its actually 16 focus points in total)

if you don't use central point focus solely the 7D has better focus. I find the 7D snappier to use, but the 5Dii's responsiveness doubled after the 2.04 firmware update
On balance the sensor wins. Other then double digic there is nothing I really need more in a camera, although 12,800 shooting would be nice as well :)
#15
colonel: out of interest what lenses do you have?
#16
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.
#17
Conqueror
colonel: out of interest what lenses do you have?

20mm Voigtlander COLOR-SKOPAR 20mm f/3.5 SL2 SL II
50mm f1.8 Canon
85mm f1.8 Canon

I will be buying a Canon 200mm f2.8 and a Canon 17-40mm f4 for walkabout

I am very minimalist. I prefer to walk back and forth rather then turn a zoom, to get super sharp pictures with lots of light. and BTW light to carry as well
#18
Liddle ol' me
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.

I have had the D700
realy didn't like it
colours not as nice as Canon
20% heavier

great camera for those that need the extra stop of ISO or have Nikon lenses
#19
colonel
Liddle ol' me
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.


I have had the D700
realy didn't like it
colours not as nice as Canon
20% heavier

great camera for those that need the extra stop of ISO or have Nikon lenses


Yes, I have a D700. Interesting comment about the colours, not something I've noticed but might carry out a test now that you mention it. Plenty of colleagues have Canon. My only real direct comparison was when myself and a Canon shooter were covering the same event, both with 70-200mm f/2.8. What immediately caught my eye was the bokeh differences (realise that's lens rather than body) - very pronounced in that Canon had a 'lines' effect compared with my 'bubbles'. Perhaps I'm just used to my own equipment, but I found the lines much less pleasing.
#20
Liddle ol' me
colonel
Liddle ol' me
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.
I have had the D700realy didn't like itcolours not as nice as Canon20% heaviergreat camera for those that need the extra stop of ISO or have Nikon lenses
Yes, I have a D700. Interesting comment about the colours, not something I've noticed but might carry out a test now that you mention it. Plenty of colleagues have Canon. My only real direct comparison was when myself and a Canon shooter were covering the same event, both with 70-200mm f/2.8. What immediately caught my eye was the bokeh differences (realise that's lens rather than body) - very pronounced in that Canon had a 'lines' effect compared with my 'bubbles'. Perhaps I'm just used to my own equipment, but I found the lines much less pleasing.

D700 is a great camera
D800 will have video so just hang tight :)
#21
The 20mm Voigtlander you have is a canon mount?
#22
colonel
Liddle ol' me
colonel
Liddle ol' me
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.
I have had the D700realy didn't like itcolours not as nice as Canon20% heaviergreat camera for those that need the extra stop of ISO or have Nikon lenses
Yes, I have a D700. Interesting comment about the colours, not something I've noticed but might carry out a test now that you mention it. Plenty of colleagues have Canon. My only real direct comparison was when myself and a Canon shooter were covering the same event, both with 70-200mm f/2.8. What immediately caught my eye was the bokeh differences (realise that's lens rather than body) - very pronounced in that Canon had a 'lines' effect compared with my 'bubbles'. Perhaps I'm just used to my own equipment, but I found the lines much less pleasing.


D700 is a great camera
D800 will have video so just hang tight :)


Don't need or want video on my camera though, so not willing to pay the extra that this will add. Had a D300s and never once used video on it - can't even imagine a situation where I might want video tbh. Heard anything on pricing of D800 or whatever the upgrade will be called? I would pay a bit extra for 16MP to safely allow myself some extra cropping room.
#23
Conqueror
The 20mm Voigtlander you have is a canon mount?

yes. made for canon and nikon mount. used to be for pentax but they stopped due to lack of sales.
its better then the mid/cheap wide canon primes, except for the L range.
the carl zeiss 21mm is much better again but three times the price
#24
Liddle ol' me
Don't need or want video on my camera though, so not willing to pay the extra that this will add. Had a D300s and never once used video on it - can't even imagine a situation where I might want video tbh. Heard anything on pricing of D800 or whatever the upgrade will be called? I would pay a bit extra for 16MP to safely allow myself some extra cropping room.

no. but I hear that it will be over 20mp. I think ETA is March 2011
#25
Thanks afroylnt

1/100 of the shots was a bit misleading. 1/100 are the ones that I say are above average. Aiming for perfection all the time.

As this is a bit off topic i will just take your advice & wisdom on board for now.

I can see a D40 or Pentax in my hands some day soon.:)
1 Like #26
This maybe an interesting read, it compares the 5dii low light ability againts the Nikon D7000, D700, D300S and D3

Looks also like the D7000 offers best value if you don't want full frame.
#27
colonel
Liddle ol' me
If you don't need 1080p video (and I don't), then a Nikon D700 edges this Canon, especially if you are shooting in low light / at high ISO.


I have had the D700
realy didn't like it
colours not as nice as Canon
20% heavier

great camera for those that need the extra stop of ISO or have Nikon lenses


Unfortunately I have'nt owned a D700 or Canon 5D but on trying a D700 in a shop what struck me was the amazing viewfinder; the image that you can see seemed to cover such a large area... it was quite a bit better I thought than the 5D Mk II's viewfinder...
#28
rizla01
1/100 are the ones that I say are above average.

Surely 50/100 are above average? :p

Sorry, Rizla. I'm such a pedant. I'll get back in my box now.

Edited By: bodderz on Dec 03, 2010 15:11
#29
afroylnt

Unfortunately I have'nt owned a D700 or Canon 5D but on trying a D700 in a shop what struck me was the amazing viewfinder; the image that you can see seemed to cover such a large area... it was quite a bit better I thought than the 5D Mk II's viewfinder...


Have heard the same expresssed elsewhere. Again can't compare from experience of using the Canon, but the D700 viewfinder is an absolute pleasure to use. And if you are using it for sports, the AF tracking is superb for capturing action.
#30
Liddle ol' me
afroylnt
Unfortunately I have'nt owned a D700 or Canon 5D but on trying a D700 in a shop what struck me was the amazing viewfinder; the image that you can see seemed to cover such a large area... it was quite a bit better I thought than the 5D Mk II's viewfinder...
Have heard the same expresssed elsewhere. Again can't compare from experience of using the Canon, but the D700 viewfinder is an absolute pleasure to use. And if you are using it for sports, the AF tracking is superb for capturing action.

you will find that that is the case with all FF cameras. the viewfinder is massive.
when you use an f2.8 lens or below its even better


Edited By: colonel on Dec 03, 2010 15:14
#31
goodgrr
This maybe an interesting read, it compares the 5dii low light ability againts the Nikon D7000, D700, D300S and D3

Looks also like the D7000 offers best value if you don't want full frame.


Now that the Pentax K-7 is coming down in price it strikes me that it offers much better value than a d7000 and maybe D300s as well though admittedly the lens selection is nowhere near as comprehensive and the quality (of individual lenses) possibly lower as well..........
#32
goodgrr
This maybe an interesting read, it compares the 5dii low light ability againts the Nikon D7000, D700, D300S and D3Looks also like the D7000 offers best value if you don't want full frame.

I take everything Ken Rockwell says with enough salt to grit my path. But in Jpeg at least the nikons do look better. I'd be interested to see the same images shot raw and converted in the same program like ACR.
#33
afroylnt
goodgrr
This maybe an interesting read, it compares the 5dii low light ability againts the Nikon D7000, D700, D300S and D3

Looks also like the D7000 offers best value if you don't want full frame.


Now that the Pentax K-7 is coming down in price it strikes me that it offers much better value than a d7000 and maybe D300s as well though admittedly the lens selection is nowhere near as comprehensive and the quality (of individual lenses) possibly lower as well..........


hmm you might consider saving a few bob and getting the K-r though (but no weather sealing) or spending a bit more and getting the K-5

http://snapsort.com/compare/Pentax_K-7-vs-Pentax_K-r

http://snapsort.com/compare/Pentax_K-5-vs-Pentax_K-7


I suppose if the K-7 drops massively though yeah.. think its about 600-700 atm though
#34
Awesome camera, nothing compares at the price for image quality IMHO.
#35
LotusJas
Awesome camera, nothing compares at the price for image quality IMHO.


I think you'll find that lenses have more to do with IQ than bodies! :3
#36
Conqueror
afroylnt
goodgrr
This maybe an interesting read, it compares the 5dii low light ability againts the Nikon D7000, D700, D300S and D3

Looks also like the D7000 offers best value if you don't want full frame.


Now that the Pentax K-7 is coming down in price it strikes me that it offers much better value than a d7000 and maybe D300s as well though admittedly the lens selection is nowhere near as comprehensive and the quality (of individual lenses) possibly lower as well..........


hmm you might consider saving a few bob and getting the K-r though (but no weather sealing) or spending a bit more and getting the K-5

http://snapsort.com/compare/Pentax_K-7-vs-Pentax_K-r


http://snapsort.com/compare/Pentax_K-5-vs-Pentax_K-7



I suppose if the K-7 drops massively though yeah.. think its about 600-700 atm though


Interesting.. tks... seems whilst the K-7 body is good the sensor is lagging. Even my D5000 comes out ahead of the K-7's sensor
#37
Interesting discussion. Especially like the snapsort.com website, hadn't come across that before. Thought it was very entertaining that my entry level Pentax K-x beats the Canon 5Dii on some levels (didn't imagine that it would be considered better in any way).
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5229513610_a025a64c1b_b.jpg



Edited By: graym3546 on Dec 03, 2010 17:36: sp
#38
Fantastic Camera, but deffinately one for a person who is either going Pro and looking to make a good living from photography. I use a 50D, so cropped sensor, i get fantastic results with my camera and at the level i shoot at i wouldnt dream of upgrading at the moment. Personaly i would invest money in better quality lenses, looking at picking up a good quality L series lense, expanding my collection and getting a new body last. Nice find though, heat added.
#39
Liddle ol' me


I think you'll find that lenses have more to do with IQ than bodies! :3


I think you'll find the sensor is just as important :3
#40
graym3546
Interesting discussion. Especially like the snapsort.com website, hadn't come across that before. Thought it was very entertaining that my entry level Pentax K-x beats the Canon 5Dii on some levels (didn't imagine that it would be considered better in any way).
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5229513610_a025a64c1b_b.jpg


Yeah im abit wary of taking everything on Snapsort at face value.. particularly the IQ...

But for a quick guide on most of the numbers it seems handy.. and yeah pentax seems to be very competitive... I dont own any of their gear... but im keen on getting some at some point


Edited By: Conqueror on Dec 03, 2010 17:57

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!