Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #13 · 5d Mark II ... discontinued. |
I own all 5d versions and mk2 was really improving is dust cleaning and af adjustments, anything else was minor or useless like video for example. I am in love with 5d classic IQ until now. Video is really different world to the most here, never been excited about and never will. My iphone takes great videos in my lame video opinion.
I had - and still have - a 5D, and I've shot a 5D2 for about four years now.
I'm with you regarding video, since I don't use it.
However, for me "live view" has fundamentally change how I shoot from the tripod - and turned out to be a major difference between the 5D and 5D2. (I wrote more about this here: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/07/06/why-i-like-live-view-on-my-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii)
In addition, the improvements in higher ISO performance proved quite useful to me. With the 5D I always tried to shoot at 100, and only shot at higher ISOs if I had no choice. I did not use ISO 400 much, and I generally steered clear of 800 and higher. The story is different with the 5D2. I really think of 100 and 200 as essentially equal in practical terms, and don't worry at all about which I use apart how they affect my choices of things like shutter speed and aperture. I even shoot landscape at 400 in some situations. I regularly use 800 for photographing things like wildlife. I even make use of 1600 and 3200 in a range of situations with good results - neither of which I would have used on the 5D.
The 5D was and is a fine camera... but the 5D2 is at least its equal or better in every way that matters photographically. I'm sure that the 5D3 and 6D continue the process of incremental improvement.
Are you shooting manual focus? How is that jump from 9 points with only one central point is good AF to the amazing 61 focus ponts AF could be called incremental improvement? What change would possibly make you happy? This site gives you quick specs compare between 6d, 5d2 and 5d3 cameras, I would suggest you to read again since difference is obviouse - 5d3 is the best among all 3 and not just because of AF.
The AF system of the 5D3 is clearly an improvement, and a reason that those who have the newer camera like it. I would not at all disagree with your statement that it is (clearly) best among the 5D, 5D2 and 5D3, nor have I ever said or implied otherwise. In fact, I've pointed out elsewhere that the improved AF system is one of the more obvious differences between the 5D2 and 5D3.
However, while the implementation of live view (for example) in the full frame 5D2 was a substantial difference - e.g. it wasn't available before in that form! - that changes the very way that many of us use our cameras, the AF changes in the 5D3 are an incremental (though welcome) improvement, as opposed to introducing an almost completely new functionality to the camera model line.
(By the way, while I use live view almost exclusively for some of my work, other subjects rely almost exclusively on the AF system.)
I'm not insulting the 5D3. It is a fine camera, and I have said so many times.. I'm just trying to quantify the model to model differences and think about how the degree of change compares.
I'm puzzled that you ended your reply with "5d3 is the best among all 3 and not just because of AF" when I ended mine with "I'm sure that the 5D3 and 6D continue the process of incremental improvement" to acknowledge that the 5D3 is an improvement on the 5D2.
(Speaking for myself, the degree of improvement was not sufficient to persuade me to upgrade, but that is an individual choice, and YMMV. While I agree that there is room for improvement in the 5D2 AF system, I don't seem to have the problems that some seem to have with it. I find it quite functional. It is an improvement, but for me not a $3000 improvement. :-)