purchase advice: 5dc vs 5d Mark II vs 5d Mark III

[scnzus]

Hi - I've been lurking on here for the past few weeks, and would greatly appreciate any advice on my upgrade decision (I previously owned a rebel xsi).

I ordered the 5d Mark III (with kit lens), and have used it a little over the past few days; it's clear that my inexperience with such an advanced camera means that I'm not really able to properly evaluate the softness/sharpness in the way that many others on here have. Apart from that, I like it very much - but it's maybe more camera (and more cost) than I need.

Considering the following as a base setup:
5dc (2nd hand on B&H) = $850+ EF 16 - 35mm f/2.8L II $1589, total outlay $2439
5d mark II (new B&H) + same lens as above = $2200 + $1479 = $3679

5d Mark III with kit lens (24 - 105 f/4.0) = $4300

So the 5dII is $1240 more than the 5dc, while the 5d III is about $600 more than the 5dII and $1861 more than the 5dc, and a worse lens.

I would be using the camera primarily for travel photographs (landscape, city, some portraits, some night shots), and don't think I'd use the video function very much.

For those with experience with any and all of these cameras, what would you do in my situation?
Thanks for any advice

 

[CHpatent]

If cost is a concern, have you considered not getting a full frame camera? The 60D and 7D are both excellent cameras. Apart from that, EF-S lenses are drastically less expensive (smaller sensor = less glass). As much as the super zooms are compromise lenses, the 18-270 Tammy is incredibly practical for travel pictures where you dont want to fumble with many lenses. The difference between the 7D and the X0D line has also eroded of the last few years. 60D + 18-270 Tammy is probably $1500 to 1600 and an excellent combination for travel.

 

[MK5GTI]

a used 5D1 is less than the 60D and a lot less than the 7D.

if you don't need video at all, and don't need an amazing AF, the 5D1 would do.