I disagree, don't discount the MK3 sales price when the 6D sales price is 1800$. The 6D also has he equally crappy AF as the 5D2. Fell free to read my previous posts.
I'm not going by a sale price, I'm going by the actual price at which you can easily acquire the camera. There is nowhere you can buy a brand new or refurbished 5D3 and only pay $2375. Nowhere. There is one place where they advertise $2375 as the price, but you are going to pay closer to $2500 after shipping and tax. On the other hand, the 6D is easily and readily available at many major online camera retailers, brand new for an ACTUAL price of $1800 (or less, see Amazon). That is how much you pay for the 6D in total, including shipping and tax.
The 6D AF is slightly improved over the 5D2. The extra two points are meaningless, but I've found that the center point focuses excellently in low light and all of the points in general are more accurate compared to the 5D2. Other than those 2 minor things, however, you're right: the 6D autofocus sucks and I wish I had a 5D3 because I rarely compose images with the subject directly in the center of the frame.
But that's not my point. My point is this that the 5D2 is a bad value and it has no place in the current Canon lineup. No matter what your priorities are, there is a camera out there that does what the 5D2 does but better. See here:
5D3: Great low-light performance. Excellent autofocus. $2500 (refurbished).
6D: Excellent low-light performance. Mediocre autofocus. $1800 (new).
7D: Bad low-light performance. Great autofocus. $900 (used).
5D2: Medicore low-light performance. Bad autofocus. $1200 (used).
Care about low-light performance AND autofocus? Get the 5D3, but pay a high price.
Care about low-light performance, but not autofocus? Get the 6D, lower price than 5D3 but low-light performance that is miles ahead of the 5D2.
Don't care about low-light performance, but do care about price? Get the 7D, for its superior autofocus over the 5D2, and yet an even lower price as well.
If you look this completely objectively, you can see that the 5D2 has the worst value of these four cameras. I'm not saying it's a bad camera. I'm not saying you should get rid of yours immediately if you still have one. I'm just saying if you're starting from scratch there's really no reason to get the 5D2. If your priority is low-light performance, the 5D3 and the 6D are better. If your priority is getting a good price, then the 7D is better. If your priority is getting a good autofocus, then the 5D3 and the 7D are better. There is no scenario in which the 5D2 is better.
I'm not saying you're wrong, RLPhoto. And I normally enjoy reading your posts as you usually make a great contribution to the threads here. But this time, I have a strong opinion that your logic is flawed. Why can't you just admit that there is NOTHING* the 5D2 can do better than the 6D but there are SOME THINGS that the 6D can do better than the 5D2?
*Except for price. But as I've stated, if price is your priority then the 7D with it's superior autofocus and high frame-rate is superior to the 5D2 and still available at a lower price. Better value than the 5D2, even with price as your priority.
