Magic lantern: buy a 5D2 or 5D3?

Started by b0san, November 04, 2012, 10:08:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Hello guys,

I need some advises, please!

I used to shoot pictures with analog cameras and film with a Canon XF100. I sold my video camera in order to switch to Canon 5d system, I've been shooting with a friend's mark2 for ten days and most of my rushes were blurred (but satisfied for photo). So I was considering to buy the mark3 mostly for sound control, better sensitivity, but still no focus assistance in video mode  >:( :o ... :'(

Anyway, I was preparing my pocket to buy the mark 3 today, until I discovered right now the magic lantern system!! That's exatly what I needed!!!
I tried to see the specs of the firmwares, but as I'm completly new, I'd like to know if you would recommend to buy the 5d2 and install magic lantern, which allows lot of features, or if I would have a big difference with the 5d3, even though the firmware is quiet new? Specially for video, would I have a big difference between both cameras after intalling magic lantern?

Thanks for your help!


For video, there's a huge improvement in 5D3: proper downsampling.

Magic Lantern runs on both.


I agree with A1ex. There's a big difference between the two. I upgraded from MK ii to MK iii and the video quality is far superior in the latter. Also, the ISO performance is night and day! Obviously, the choice has to do with your shooting style but if you deal with a natural light and require low light performance, then there's no question that MK III is far superior to MK II. If you just shoot video in daylight or with assisted lighting, then there may not be as huge a difference between the two. Obviously, ML is fully developed in MK 2 and that's what I miss the most in it; but low light and image quality are still best for me in MK III. That's just my humble opinion.  :)



Thanks to both of you for your replies. So, if I resume, MkII with ML is more user friendly in the actual state of the ML development, but once ML for MkIII will be developped, there will be a real gap for video, so MkIII is a good investment in a medium/long term perspective... If the video shooting has to starts now, it could be more accurate to choose the MkII.

So, according to my future projects (still phootgraphy and video documentary in a remote rural area, no assistant, no soundman, no extra lighting) which are no urgent, I picked the Mk3(!!!)...



I even think with ML in it's current alpha state, the mk3 is much better than the mk2. I have both as well. Good choice! Hope you enjoy it. :)