And this is where I have to call BS, Canon did not make a "worse camera" not to the point a client can tell one from the other imo, and you in your own words say you transmit JPGs to the client, so in a blind test the client has said, "those images, they are not acceptable" and you, now revert back to the Mk2 and all is well. Well, now see here is my beef with that, in all regard, noise, focus, sharpness, can't say megapixels as that's the same, file sizes and just about all other aspects of MY Mk3 that I OWN is better than my Mk2 that I used for the last 4 years... I mean.... so all these shooters, press, sports, and so on who have upgraded will now have work returned, I can see it now, in the press room, "blimey, guys come over hear and take a look at Joes images, they are awful, you can see he's using a 1DX3, what are Canon thinking" lolololol Just looking at noise alone, I don't see a massive improvement at high ISO, where I so see an improvement is THE noise, its smoother, easier to clean up, images are slightly sharper, the new AA filter defo has an effect, speed, the speed is now insane! The AF is on another level IMO, the OVF is better than ever and those new focus points I love them, full touch screen is awesome and so is the new smart controller, battery life - amazing defo WAY better thanks to the single Digic X, and again, the speed, power up from standby is INSTANT, while in standby hit the shutter and B A M, image taken, not just taken but metered, focus and captured, what else springs to mind, oh yeah that speed again, CFe cards and that buffer - no wait - what buffer I have not seen it buffer yet! So these are just a few that I can think of while I jibber on here in this thread, I hope you can see why someone like me is confused and would like to understand more why I should revert back to a Mk2?