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.