• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

Projected MkIII vs MkII for landscape photography

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhotonCanvas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhotonCanvas

Guest
Here's a question from a landscape photographer perspective. The 5D MkIII (as per leaked specs) seems evolutionary. Negligible res (pixel) increase. It may be cleaner, but for a landscape photographer the Mk II is plenty clean. Video performance is nice but some photographers only care for stills.

If you are a landscape photographer, have an original 5D, had skipped the MkII, would you get now a MkIII or a MkII (heavily discounted)?
 
I doubt if it would be worth the difference just for stills. I want better low light performance, and better AF would help in a few cases.

I'm not into video, so paying more just for video would be of no benefit to me. I'll wait until tomorrow to decide between ordering the 1D X and the MK III.
 
Upvote 0
If the DR and ISO improvements are what is expected, then I prefer the Mark III for the artistic headroom it will provide.

Even in tripod shots, you got the element of time - how soft or crisp will be the clouds? or the stars? or the time you have to capture a light beam in a dark slot canyon; or that stormy weather on top of a mountain? Plus there are factors like DOF, HDR assemblies to contend with.

I dont have a 5D Mark II to compare. But my experience with just getting a 70-200 IS II with 4-stop stabilization opened up a bunch of freedoms. I suspect the new Canons will do the same in the form of artistic expression.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.