« on: July 07, 2014, 02:33:49 PM »
Look at the original 5D and compare against the MK III significantly different, but II to III not so different.
My experience was that from 5D to MK II not so different but MK II to MK III significantly different.
Do other peoples experience match colinrb or mine?
I know this is going off thread, but it is an interesting question because it really depends on where your priorities lie. The 5DII offered a significant improvement in tonal quality over the original, especially in more extreme lighting conditions, a noticeable increase in resolution and a moderately better higher ISO performance. OOC jpegs can be quite useable. The II also had the much improved screen, video capability etc.. The 5DIII gives a very subtle improvement in tonal quality over the II, but a huge improvement in high ISO performance. It is also much faster, has an improved level of build, and of course, the AF in in a different league.
If you look at the overall package of the camera, I would say on balance that each mark was an equal jump forward in 'overall' performance.
I think most would agree that the first incarnation of the ubiquitous 18mp sensor in the 7D was the worst, so hopefully if the 7DII does have a new sensor it will be more thoroughly sorted than the original.