I am neither a "pro" nor an expert on many things photography. But i do have some real world experience using 5d3 and 5d2 to a much lesser extent.
I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.
Slower and less useful? seriously? there is some quirk in AF (in low light) when you half press the shutter but that's about the only "problem" i have. I've used my friend's 5d2 and i find the 5d3's AF select way more useful
I'm sure that both people shoot from inside waterfalls appreciate that.
In my part of the world i frequently visit "hill stations" where there is too much fog / dew. So it IS great to have better weather sealing
How is not being able to see what AF spot is selected "better"??
How is this related to having a better viewfinder? Last time i checked the view finder was something like 5d2's 98% Vs 100% in 5d3
One CF slot.
Well, i agree. Dual CF slot would have been a better option but probably it came down to limited real estate and size of the camera
Welcome, but not along worth rebuying a body.
Probably, if you base your decision on this parameter alone. But coming from 7d this is a much better experience to me compared to the 5d2.
The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.
I am not an expert on this. But technically sensor is not identical. To me at higher ISO (>3200ish) it's a clear 1/2 stop improvement over 5d2 and definitely better handling of banding/shadow noise over 5d2 overall.
Canon did blew it when it came to DR and banding/ shadow noise compared to you-know-which-model. But then if you are hinting that 5d3 is not up to the mark to you it doesn't in anyway mean it's not for others. I am totally happy with the results i get with my 5d3 (studio/Low-light & generic use).