Just got a trade offer - is it worth it? (5D2+7D vs. 5D3)

[RunAndGun]

I have two MKII's and a MKIII. I love my new MKIII, but I would not take that deal.  I've never been a big fan of the 7D(IQ wise), but I think you should hang onto what you have.  I also do not have the original version of the 16-35(I have the v2), but most things I have read about it versus the v2 do not cast a favorable light on the original.

So to sum it up, do I think the 5DMKIII is worth acquiring? Yes. Do I think it's worth trading a 5DMKII AND a 7D for.  No.

[AAPhotog]

get the mrk iii with the latest Tech. You will loose some reach, but iq, fps, and 61pts af are great. One less body to carry around.

Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3, unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500.I say skip the 5D3. Improved AF and FPS alone is not worth it.

"Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3" ==> Base on what? Let me guess....DP told you

"unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500" ===> So why do you want mrk II AGAIN???

"Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3" ==> Base on what? Let me guess....DP told you

"unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500" ===> So why do you want mrk II AGAIN???

Have you try mrk III yet? Better AF, faster frame rate, and better ISO(low light)...pls don't tell me these features are NOT worth it.

Not to mention that it would be an investment(dictated by current market rates). I'd say, make the trade... If you don't like it. Sell it to purchase your old gear again(while gaining a 500 dollar profit)

[Mt Spokane Photography]

"unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500" ===> So why do you want mrk II AGAIN???

Have you try mrk III yet? Better AF, faster frame rate, and better ISO(low light)...pls don't tell me these features are NOT worth it.

I sold my 3.5 year old MK II and bought a MK III, and do mostly low light shooting.  The MK III was not worth it to me.  I use center point, and its about the same accuracy as the MK II.  IQ is the same up to ISO 6400, and AF on the MK III is slower at higher ISO's, often 3 seconds to turn on the focus light at ISO 6400.
 
I also have bought a D800 along with some high end lenses which I am trying out.  At high ISO's in low light, its worse than both the MK II and MK III, so its going on the block.  It is great in good light, nothing can touch it in the price range, but only if you have the best glass, can you get the extra resolution, and just a tiny bit of error in AF, and you lose the advantage.  I've had to take a dozen shots to get one that was perfectly focused when using a "D" lens, the gold ring "G" lenses are better.  Nikon lenses seem to have the same or even more variability in AF than Canon, and the D800 lets you see that in spades.
 
I tend to think that 22mp is a pretty good match for most of the current lenses, however there are some that are better, particularly in the Canon lineup.  Unfortunately, Canon is also charging a big premium for those.  The Canon 100-400mm L is a good reason to use Canon all by itself, there is nothing to touch it in the price range in the Nikon lineup, or third party either. 

[jhpeterson]

Does anyone have experience with the original 16-35L ?  Is it worth it, or should I try to avoid it?

I had the original 16-35 L several years ago. Though it would be the perfect wide lens for travels. Turned out it wasn't nearly as good as the 17-35 and 20-35 L lenses I'd had before, particularly in the corners. Even greatly stopped down, it never really looked sharp. Glad to get the II version, which appears to be a much better performer.
Perhaps I just had a bad copy, but I've heard much the same from several others. I'd definitely recommend you test the lens for yourself and see if you can live with the results before make the trade.
Have both a 7D and 5D2 and found they each have their strong points, as well as weaknesses. I haven't used the 5D3 yet, but I imagine it to be the best of both worlds, so a pretty even or slight plus for a trade, that is unless your preference is for having one more body.

[Ew]

Thank you all for your input.

Understanding I would lickely not be happy with the 16-35Lv1, I countered with omitting the lens trade part (10-22 vs 16-35v1) - while I was waiting for a reply, someone picked up the 5d3+16-35v1 for cash.  So, did I loose out?  No!

And good for me!  My current kit suits me well, and I can move forward with a fisheye (which I've been wanting for a long time).

Again, thank you all.

[BobSanderson]

I'd skip the deal.  I did not see a whole lot of improvement from my MK II to my MK III, so I bought a used 1D MK IV for the same price as the MK III.
 
I will say that the MK III focused very well in ordinary light, but took its sweet time in low light.  The 1D MK IV is not that good at AF in low light either.
 
I'm thinking of going back to a 5D MK II plus my 7D and wait until prices drop or refurbs come out.

What are you guys drinking in them there parts?

[Dylan777]

I'd skip the deal.  I did not see a whole lot of improvement from my MK II to my MK III, so I bought a used 1D MK IV for the same price as the MK III.
 
I will say that the MK III focused very well in ordinary light, but took its sweet time in low light.  The 1D MK IV is not that good at AF in low light either.
 
I'm thinking of going back to a 5D MK II plus my 7D and wait until prices drop or refurbs come out.

By then, I'm going for mrk 4 

[bdunbar79]

get the mrk iii with the latest Tech. You will loose some reach, but iq, fps, and 61pts af are great. One less body to carry around.

Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3, unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500.I say skip the 5D3. Improved AF and FPS alone is not worth it.

"Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3" ==> Base on what? Let me guess....DP told you

"unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500" ===> So why do you want mrk II AGAIN???

Have you try mrk III yet? Better AF, faster frame rate, and better ISO(low light)...pls don't tell me these features are NOT worth it.

They certainly are worth it.  That's why I have the 5D Mark III.  As a third body, however, I am going to get a 5D Mark II just because of the resolution and price.  I owned one before and I think I'd rather have that as a true backup body in addition to my 5D Mark III and 1D Mark IV.  Where am I going with this?  Well, I love the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III so much, my answer would be to do the trade then save up more money and buy a backup 5D Mark II down the road.  Hey, that's just me, haha.

[RunAndGun]

Or sell the 7D and 10-22mm and put that towards a MKIII and have the MKIII as the primary and your MKII as your second/back-up body.

[Ew]

Or sell the 7D and 10-22mm and put that towards a MKIII and have the MKIII as the primary and your MKII as your second/back-up body.

That would put me at ~2k out of pocket and without an UW...   interesting thought though...

[bdunbar79]

Or sell the 7D and 10-22mm and put that towards a MKIII and have the MKIII as the primary and your MKII as your second/back-up body.

That would put me at ~2k out of pocket and without an UW...   interesting thought though...

Point taken.  But let me share how I view these comparisons.  A friend of mine told me that buying the 5D Mark III wasn't worth it when I had the 5D Mark II and 7D.  His reasoning was the fact that the 5D Mark II and 7D together could be used for FF (Mark II) and actions/sports (7D).  I bought the 5D Mark III.  The reason is that you cannot "merge" your cameras suddenly and take the same photo at the same time with both cameras and get one image that blends the best of both.  So, I got ONE camera that does both the 5D Mark II and 7D features minus the 1.6 crop factor.  To me, having ONE camera that does everything I want it to, is far more valuable than having two cameras that each have their own strengths and complement one another because again, I only get one photo with the push of the shutter button.  That's just my take on it. 

If you do the trade, you now have a 5D Mark III and 600D.  How is that not a great combo?  Your 10-22 you can keep for the 600D.  You haven't lost anything really, only having gained a single camera that can do everything your 5D Mark II and 7D do individually.

If you don't do the trade, you still have 2 GREAT Canon cameras.  I am a fan of the 5D Mark II and the 7D as well.  I just would happen to rather have the 5D Mark III than those two seperate cameras.

[cliffwang]

Everyone is different.  How do you use the camera?  For money?  For fun?  Or for something else?  Different purpose will make you decide if it is worth or not.  There are many posts with many ideas in the thread already.  You see the benefit for the upgrade.  Now do you think that's worth for you?
I have 5D2 and 7D with many lens, but I decide not to upgrade to 5D3 because 80%+ of time I am not shooting my photo in low light.  3.5K is overpriced for ME.  Ask youself what's the value of the 5D3 should be for you.  If you think the price should be 3.5K or even 4.5K, go for it.  Otherwise, stay with your gears.  I am still enjoying my gears.

[risc32]

After years of running multiple cameras I've come to see it as bdunbar79 stated. In short order you will find yourself anticipating what camera lens combos will play better in different settings. Only for something to change or you to get wrong, and you'll be swapping lenses all night. I think this is more pronounced when you're running a 1.6 sensor body and FF at the same time. In one shot you'll want the most shallow DOF, then widest angle, then fps, then...I still have multiple cameras, but I consider the 5dmk3 my all-in-one.