I've been positively stunned by the great high-ISO performance of the new 5d after reading the review by Jeff Ascough - http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html
The price seems a bit high, that's true, but I just want your opinion - I'm switching to FF from 550D, I currently have 24-105mm f/4, and 50mm f/1.4 by... some other brand For 3500 I could either get 5dmkIII or mkII + 70-200mm f/4.
But the main problem is that f/4 is a little bit slow when paired with mkII, and its high ISO performance is disappointing, so I won't be able to use these lenses (70-200 f/4 and 24-105) in low-light conditions.
So the question is, isn't it better to grab the much more costly mkIII while saving quite a good amount of money on lenses? I know ISO does not equal aperture, but I mostly do photojournalism so I don't care much about bokeh and DoF. Any opinions are appreciated, thank you.
I'm thinking about the same issues. At present I can't afford the 5D MK3 + the 24-70 and to be honest I don't think I really need it. I shoot video 70% of the time and to be honest I think F4 coupled with the improved ISO will work perfectly for me on a day to day basis. When we're shooting commercials we will always hire lenses in anyway.
Also, shooting video at 2.8 can be a bit of pain as the depth is so shallow. Either way for most of my work the 24-105 will work perfectly. I think £3600 for that kit is a bit pricey but still fair and justified. One thing I can't seem to find out is when it will be available in the UK?
I know you're talking about photography but I think our paths cross slightly on this so I thought I'd give my two cents.