Yep. The 50% faster frame rateI 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.
You can only achieve the maximum frame rate when the shutter speed is high enough. The shutter speed needs to be high enough to account for shutter lag and mirror blackout time as well, which are on the order of 125ms for the 5D III. If your shutter speed is too slow, you can't actually achieve exactly 6fps...thus the "up to 6fps".
including a multicontroller on the gripThe pictures I find of the 5D3 show no such thing. It'd be really awkward to hold if it did.
You aren't looking at the right pictures. The multicontroller was a big new thing with the 5D III battery grip. To put the issue to rest and eliminate any more "None of the pictures I've seen
show it", take a look at TDP's review...the third photo shows the multicontroller on the grip quite clearly...and it doesn't get in the way:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E11-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx
it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF. Right.
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.
The sensor has a 16% improvement in Q.E. as well as lower minimum read noise. Thanks to both of those, there is a visible two-fold improvement in high ISO usability, which falls around 12800 ISO without the need for NR (i.e. comparing direct 5D II RAW to 5D III RAW). (Besides, the whole notion of "usable" is sketchy at best...there are forms of photography that don't require artistically usable ISO, such as documentary and police photography, where ISO 25600 or even the boost ISO settings are "usable". Not to mention the fact that if you can't get the shot at all at a "low" ISO, you really have nothing to lose by using a higher one.) Complaining about "default" settings is just a copout. Don't like the "defaults"? Change em...they ARE configurable!
BTW, high ISO unusable? Try this...ISO 25,600, 1D X (which would be about how good the 5D III @ ISO 12800 is from a noise standpoint):How "The City and the Storm" photo was taken"
Regarding whether all the improvements in the 5D III are worth the upgrade...well, there isn't a formula for that. That is something each photographer has to determine for himself. The same goes for a "big megapixel"
camera...whether the Canon Big MP body will suit a photographer is up to the photographer to decide. If we assume the big mp sensor has the same read noise as the 5D III (which I find unlikely...I figure it would be closer to the 7D which is about 4x less than the 5D III), the higher pixel count will produce improved results when scaled down to 5D III size. If the sensor does have 7D-level read noise (which I figure would be the case given the fact that the sensor would have the same pixel size, and similar FWC), overall read noise would be considerably lower than the 5D III, and even better when scaled to the same size.