The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?

[kbmelb]

My take.  I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money

This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.

I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real -  it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion.

Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure.

Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.

My income is solely based on my photographs, contrast to the above, which I totally understand and respect because I told myself the same thing for a couple weeks after the mkIII was made available. But I caved and can't say it was the best business move but I don't feel like it was a bad one. I doubt I will ever be able to quantify it but I spend less time fiddling with MF because there is AF point where I need it. I spend less time sorting through missed focus shots or sharpening missed focus shot. Less time cropping because I didn't have to settle on an AF point to get the shot. I just plain end up with shots the way I intended out of the camera. I for see the mkIII having a longer shutter life (time wise) since I am shooting less shots. It frees me up to just take the picture I find it very liberating.

I know a lot of the arguments are that people had no problem with AF of the 5DII. While styles are all different, my point here is I made the mkII work too but it was more work to get it right in the camera and it was sometimes more work in post. So to me the mkIII is same money earned but less time equals happier me. I don't think the mkIII is a game changer by any means (I'm not in a hurry to trade my mkII in for another mkIII) but it can be a difference maker to most.

I sold my 1DsmkII for $1500 after my mkIII purchase so I look at as only being $2k in the hole and I'm ok with that. Plus it helps me out with Uncle Sam next year.

[takoman46]

My take.  I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money

This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.

I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real -  it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion.

Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure.

Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.

You have a valid point: As long as the MkII keeps generating revenue, there is no need for a MkIII. I also shoot weddings and generate revenue from the MkII, but I have upgraded to the MkIII for this reason: Although, the MkII is good enough to get the job done and delivers beautiful results, the advancements of the MkIII make my job just a little bit easier by reducing post processing time at the very least. Now, if you think about all the man-hours spent on post processing, and look at your long-term savings in post processing time that the MkIII should give you; then the MkIII is a wise purchase in itself because it increases efficiency and productivity. Thus, allowing you as a photographer and business owner to generate more revenue, because you are now able to pick up x amount more jobs. 

[jaduffy007]

Can you send some of whatever it is your smokin'?

Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .

The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!

Now if you all want to spend days and nights thihnkning of DR in the smallest coreners of some generic image, then go ahead . . but if you are thinkning of a more than WELL ROUNDED camera, the mkIII is without doubt the best there is. The AF on the D800 is choppy and the burst rate on the mkIII gives you more bang for your buck when paired with that AF and fps. The LCD on the mkIII is the best too, while over at Nikon they are still trying to make up their minds what colour mcast they like on the D800 v D3s etc etc etc. D800 is a great camea for the amount of MP it offers, and it is in another class in terms of res and shadow detail/DR. That is not something that willg et you a better image out in teh field where DR in any given scene is variable anyway. With the mkIII you even have in-camera DR system where it brackets for you and presents you a final image. . .  if able to do this in raw format, then yay!

The video posted over at Fstoppers shoing just how good the mkIII is over the D800 is fricken astounding! check it out, and then ask yourselves whether you want to talk about DR, shadow detail, and ISO. . .

Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight: High-ISO

this video kinda shows how the Nikon cameras are heavily biased towards bringing out the shadow detail, and it shows how that may influence DR tests in the lab ( not sure about that, though) . . remember they measured only the sensor.

[Orion]

Can you send some of whatever it is your smokin'?

Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .

The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!

Now if you all want to spend days and nights thihnkning of DR in the smallest coreners of some generic image, then go ahead . . but if you are thinkning of a more than WELL ROUNDED camera, the mkIII is without doubt the best there is. The AF on the D800 is choppy and the burst rate on the mkIII gives you more bang for your buck when paired with that AF and fps. The LCD on the mkIII is the best too, while over at Nikon they are still trying to make up their minds what colour mcast they like on the D800 v D3s etc etc etc. D800 is a great camea for the amount of MP it offers, and it is in another class in terms of res and shadow detail/DR. That is not something that willg et you a better image out in teh field where DR in any given scene is variable anyway. With the mkIII you even have in-camera DR system where it brackets for you and presents you a final image. . .  if able to do this in raw format, then yay!

The video posted over at Fstoppers shoing just how good the mkIII is over the D800 is fricken astounding! check it out, and then ask yourselves whether you want to talk about DR, shadow detail, and ISO. . .

Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight: High-ISO

this video kinda shows how the Nikon cameras are heavily biased towards bringing out the shadow detail, and it shows how that may influence DR tests in the lab ( not sure about that, though) . . remember they measured only the sensor.

I don't think you can afford it!

http://youtu.be/P72LtIRm9mc
	Small | Large

[V8Beast]

My take.  I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money

This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.

I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real -  it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion.

Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure.

Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.

IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of rationalizing, and on top of that, it's smart business. IQ wise, the MKIII is nothing revolutionary, so unless you need improved AF, FPS, weather sealing, etc., there's no reason to upgrade. For me, my biggest gripe with the 5DC was it's miserable AF, so when Canon put the same junk system in the MKII, I decided to wait until the next generation to upgrade.

[Marsu42]

Poll closed, the results are in! And amazingly, there are less than 50% troll votes either advising people to get rich quick or bashing the 5d3 because they cannot afford it :-) ... so there's still hope left.