Got a 400D with 18-55mm IS Lens and had it for few years now, I am not pro
Thinking of going to FF as I like the details and wide lens rather than the 1.6x crop on my 400D and been looking to get 5D MKII but I like the MKIII as well.
The only reason I think about the MKIII due to its 61 points AF rather than 9 points on the MKII but is this a deal breaker for the MKIII? Is it worth paying that extra for 61 AF points? will that be a big deal?
Use it mostly for landscape and portraits, at the same time I want to get the 24-105mm f4 but wonder how this will be in low light compared to the 18-55mm which struggles to focus in low/bad light?
I would definitely shell out for the 5D III if you can -- the AF system is much better even if you aren't shooting fast moving subjects. If I could have afforded it, I would have gone from the 5D to the 5DIII.
Paul
Often discussed in this forum earlier, since this is a Canon gear forum, most will point you towards the MkIII direction. It depends what you mostly shoot - for photojournalism, action, sports and wedding photography, even sometimes portrait stuff in dim light for example, the better AF system of the MkIII is advantageous.
For fine art, landscape, architecture photography on the other hand you will not notice a severe difference between the two cameras. Especially at low ISO numbers it is the same. Consider that both cameras use the same or very similar sensor and even improvements for high ISO are better seen in the 6D than in the 5D MkIII.
If money is not a limitation, I would consider getting one of the latest camera models out there like the 6D or 5D MkIII - considering that you pay the surcharge in the MkIII mostly just for a good AF system which is a bit outdated in the 5D II. The 6D at least gives you some visible improvements at high ISO numbers but has other drawbacks compared to the 5D series. I personally will continue to use my 5D MkII models since upgrading from this camera to a 5D III makes no sense for my style of photography. I only envy the MkIII for its 100% viewfinder.
I've been contemplating the same thing the last month or so. Got rid of my D700 early in 2012 when I wanted to try smaller m4/3 and mirrorless cameras because of the weight DSLRs had and thought I wouldn't miss the FF sensor. I had a some nice lenses when I oned a 7D and D700 that I wished I still had, so I'll be starting from scratch "again".
I was all set to invest in a solid used 5D MKII and two or three nice lenses. Handled a 5D MKIII and read about the better AF and now I'm looking to fund a MKIII and just a 24-70L. When I owned a 7D, I really loved the AF and the D700 came very close. Cant imagine owning a nice FF with only one cross type focus point that the MKII has. I take a lot of action photos and feel that it wouldn't take me long before I would realize the MKII isn't working for me.
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
AF system on the 5D Mark III is great.
Also don't overlook the 6D or D600 (it don't sound like your heavliy invested in glass).
the 24-105 will be better in low light, if you want low light get the 6D (if your a non full time sports shooter).
Looks like the 6D beats the 5D Mark III for HIGH ISO tests.
If at the end of the day, you just want better in low light you have another good choice.
7D and 17-50 with VC/IS. Having a 2.8 lens with IS is really helpful.
Not been investing much in glass as was not really sure of staying with Canon's ASP-C and waiting for the time to upgrade into a FF body. I did try one of my mates Nikon but didn't like it, I am much used to Canon's menu's.
6D got just 11 AF point compared to 61 on 5dMKIII also considering 2.8 lens like the 16-35 but does not come with IS so might go for the 24-105 f4 (wish it was 2.8)!
for landscapes and portraits, 1 really good AF point is plenty to get the job done. Upgrading your glass will get you the most return on your investment, unless of course you have plenty of money to blow.
For what you say you shoot, I would suggest a 5d2 (or 6d) with a really good general purpose lens (24-70 or 24-105), good wide lens (say 17-40), and telephoto for your portraiture like the 135/2 or 70-200.
p.1 #11 · Time for FF but which? 5d MKII or MKIII?
I just got a 5D2 but if I had the money would have opted for a MK3 for sure. Everything I read about low light performance and the AF says worth the cost. Plus, nearly every comment I have read regarding the 5D2 and 3 says the 3 was worth the $$ and the 3 is what the mk2 should have been.
The 18-55 kit lens sucks once you get some good lenses. The focus is so much faster and the photos IMHO look better.
p.1 #12 · Time for FF but which? 5d MKII or MKIII?
Unless you have some heavy wildlife, sports, events needs for the af in the 5diii the 6d is probably the better camera. Smaller, lighter, costs less, wifi, and GPS. With the money saved you could get a nice prime for low light, 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Maybe even stretch a little and get a 135 L. Although if I was in your position I'd revisit Nikon d600 the Sony sensor is a generation ahead of canon.
p.1 #13 · Time for FF but which? 5d MKII or MKIII?
ardvorak wrote:
My vote goes to the 5D III. I also echo retrofocus in that I'd choose between the 6D and the 5D III.
Really, why for the intended use by the OP? What benefit is there in the 5d3 for landscapes and portraits. The biggest benefit I see with the 5d2 is about $1,500 savings that can be used to better his lens which will benefit the OP's photography much more than the new 5d3.
p.1 #14 · Time for FF but which? 5d MKII or MKIII?
mikeinctown wrote:
... Everything I read about low light performance and the AF says worth the cost. Plus, nearly every comment I have read regarding the 5D2 and 3 says the 3 was worth the $$ and the 3 is what the mk2 should have been.
...
Absolutely true - IF you need the low light AF performance. I do, and my 5d3 was worth the money to ME for doing weddings. BUT - if you don't need that, save the money and get good glass - that will help you get better images than pro AF with crappy lenses.
