Since I have seen prices dip a bit for the 5DIII body, I am seriously considering upgrading from my 5DII. However, I am trying to wrestle with the fact that the Mark III is enough of an upgrade from the Mark II.
For those of you who have upgraded, has it been worth it for you? I shoot mainly cityscapes and landscapes, so the improved AF really wouldn't benefit me since I shoot static subjects (or maybe it would?). However, is the dynamic range a significant factor from the Mark II to Mark III? I know the video shooting has been improved from the Mark II, but I don't care about video as my DSLR is 100% used for stills.
Any help and insight would be greatly appreciated.
For a landscape shooter the 5D3 offers a better live view and weather shielding. The color palette is slightly different and shows some similarity to the 7D also. However, sharpness and dynamic range are similar. In my opinion not enough reasons to upgrade. Only if you were looking for the best general use camera around, I would suggest you to buy the 5D3.
I wouldn't rush out and buy the 5D III if you weren't doing any action work. IQ wise I see little difference, so it's mainly about the new AF, and extra speed as well as much improved ergonomics. If you aren't using AI servo much, you won't see much difference. Invest in better glass and re-examine the 5D III in another year or so.
If it were a first time purchase and a choice between purchasing the 5D MkII or 5D MkIII I'd definitely go with the III if the money wasn't a big issue. But if you already have the 5D MkII I'd stick with it for your needs. Both do seem to have decent reductions in price currently. And sticking with your MkII for now, who knows, the 5D MkIII may still yet see more price drops and you can get an even better deal!
I never thought I would sell my 5DII, but the AF was the deciding factor; I used a 1-series body for a year alongside the Mark II and just began to enjoy being able to select more than one reliable focus point...Since the upgrade, though, I've also been pleasantly surprised at the 5DIII's ability to comfortably handle higher ISO's...
In your situation, the 5DII sounds like it'll fulfill your needs for a while longer...rent a Mark III to be sure of your decision - that always helps me...
I have the mk3 and had the mk2. Liveview is better implemented. When you use manual focus and zoom-in this is useful.
But the majority of the improvement is for general usage not landscape photography where IQ is similar. I would suggest to upgrade to a 1Ds mk3. This weekend my 7d got soaked and stopped working!
jstntym wrote:
If it were a first time purchase and a choice between purchasing the 5D MkII or 5D MkIII I'd definitely go with the III if the money wasn't a big issue. But if you already have the 5D MkII I'd stick with it for your needs. Both do seem to have decent reductions in price currently. And sticking with your MkII for now, who knows, the 5D MkIII may still yet see more price drops and you can get an even better deal!
For landscapes and cityscapes, I don't see any benefit of a 5D3 over a 5D2. Cost wise, you can pick up a slightly used 5D2 for under $1500. IE: 1/2 the price of the 5D3. If I did not have a camera today and was to shoot landscapes and cityscapes, I still would purchase a good used 5D2 and spend the rest of glass and other gear that would benefit this type of photography more than the AF abilities of the 5D3.
Hi, if you disregard the improvements in body build / weather sealing, AF performance, Features and controls the 5D3 does have improved performance at very high iso's and specially long exposures. So if you shoot nightscapes and astrophotography you will see a bit cleaner images and overall more manipulable files in those situations.
Thanks for sharing this plot! Makes now even more sense to me to stick to my 5D II - I am using ISO 50-200 by far more often than ISO 1600 or 3200 (I normally do not go beyond this ISO number anyway).
If the only use for the camera is shot landscapes with center point focus than there is no reason to change. But if you shoot people at gatherings, vacation shots while walking around, kid's sports, street, etc than the 5DMK3 is a pretty big upgrade. The AF is just one of the changes. Noise is better controlled at all ISOs, with high ISOs (12,800) being practical. Auto ISO is very nice and works well. The camera is quicker and 6 fps is fast enough for most action and daily life. Also, having silent mode means you can shot in crowds without attracting attention. All and all the 5DMK3 is superb package.
Unless you're shooting action and want/need full frame for it, the 5D3 is not enough of an upgrade to warrant any expenditure, much less $1500+.
There is some minutia in addition to this, but in the "real world", the 5D3 only improves upon the 5D2:
1. frame rate
2. Focusing speed/accuracy with non-center points
3. weather sealing somewhat...
4. High ISO noise and banding.
I borrowed one from CPS for 2 weeks and came to this conclusion. I use my 5D2 for static subjects and underwater work. For things that move fast, I have a 7D and 1D4.
