« on: March 24, 2012, 07:58:46 AM »
I think XanuFoto may have hit the nail on the head.
The 5D2 was considered a good camera for studio and landscape use, where the ancient autofocus and slow FPS were less important, but they have now changed their tack a little by giving us solid improvements in those areas, and also making the low light capabilities so much better.
Nikon have now gone from a relatively low-res sensor to one bursting with megapickles, but the FPS is still slow, and from the comparisons that I've seen, it's not as good in low light as the 5D3.
So, they are different horses for different courses.
Personally, I think Canon did itself a diss-service by not giving the 5D3 a new name and they should have tried to distance themselves from the 5D2, as the 5D3 is, to me at any rate, more a cut-down 1Dx.
If they would have called it a 2D for example, or a 4D (I wouldn't call a camera a 3D unless it was a real 3D camera) a lot of the crap that is floating out there would have hit the road by now and be forgotten.
Personally, I'm definitely going to get one, but I'll wait a couple of months for all the dust to be settled when I'll be able to drive a hard bargain on one, because the retailers will have them sititng on the shelves and al the dust would have clreaed away.
They would have probably done one or 2 firmware upgrades by then too.
I think Canon have been smart. Instead of giving us a camera that is really only suitable for one or 2 genres, they've given us a really usefull and competant all-round camera that can still be used in the studio, or for landscapes, but can still cut the mustard with action and low-light shooting too.
Where the 5D2 was more for serious landscapers and studio work, the 5D3 is great for advanced amateurs like me who want a camera that can do everything.
Because of its new found speed and low light abilities, I reckon the wedding photographers will also be standing in line to get them too.