Who upgraded from 5d mk2 to mk3 ?

[WhoIreland]

Hey...

Long time lurker,first time poster.

Have had d60, 10d ,1dmk2, 5d , 5d mk2

Gear is 35L , 85Lii, 100macro, 17-40L , 70-200mk2, and just this week a 24-70L mk2
And 600ex plus stert3, 2x550ex

Anyway,to the point- I've been sitting on the fence about jumping to mk3....
Have mk3 owners here generally upgraded from a mk2 or something older?
Since I now have mk2 of 24-70 and 70-200 plus new flash I'm thinking the mk3 would compliment my gear very well

I shoot mostly family stuff with a little concert photography as a sideline

 

[awinphoto]

I did. The m3 is so much better in every way possible. Best choice

 

[dr croubie]

I've got a mate who had the 5D mk1 that he sold for the 5Dmk2 on release, which he then sold for the 5D mk3 on release.

He actually offered the mk2 to me for $1900 the week before the mk3 was released, I passed. he ended up selling it on commision and got $1850 out of it. Then he got the mk3 a few months later in Hong Kong (he lives there part time so no worries about world-wide warranty).

Good thing I didn't get the mk2 from him second hand, especially with that deal last week, 5D mk2 and Pixma 9000 for $1600 all-up or something. Damn i wish i lived in the US, i so would have nabbed that...

 

[Click]

I did too... upgraded from a mk II to mk III I prefer the mk III by far.

 

[Philco]

My lens kit matches yours really closely, and I definitely trust the 5DIII to nail focus in ways that I never enjoyed with the 5DII. My keeper rate is definitely higher than with the 5DII due to focus, especially in darker situations when people are moving. For shooting music, I love being able to trust that I will nail focus at f1.4, and go to ISO 3200 or 6400 without any problems.

 

[bdunbar79]

I upgraded and I think it was worth it.

 

[Axilrod]

+1, upgraded from 5D2 to 5D3, although I still kept the 5D2. It's a huge jump, just the difference in AF performance is worth the difference to me, but the high ISO performance and other features are great too.

 

[Kernuak]

I upgraded, but mainly because I shoot wildlife and landscapes. My 7D can't cope in low light, while the 5D MkII could focus better in such conditions, but couldn't track and I couldn't adjust the focus point and still get a lock. The 5D MkIII gives me the best of both worlds, it can track and it can focus in low light, provided there is some sort of contrast. It is much more of an allround camera, so it would be ideal for travel when I can't take two bodies. However, if I was only shooting landscapes, I would not have bothered upgrading, as it doesn't offer enough of an improvement (although I do like the colours it produces). For family stuff, it probably depends whether or not you have fast moving children .

 

[MarioMachado]

my mk2 was kind of new, I saw mk3 and I could not resist, I sold mk2 and got mk3 with no regrets! I do want a 1DX but cant afford now, so really happy with the 2nd best dSLR of the world

 

[tron]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I did, sent back the MK III and bought another MK II. Then, I happened to snag a MK III for 2750 last week, so I'll keep that one. $3500 was too much for the improvements to my type of shooting. $2750 seems right to me.
I just sold my 2nd copy of the MK II for a $200 profit, so I'm waiting for the MK III to arrive tomorrow. Having already had one, I know it well already, I took 1100 images before returning the first one. The thing that annoyed me most was the small difficult to see AF points in low light. There are workarounds, but they are klutzy. Other than that, everything is a big plus.

 

[Kernuak]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...

1. I've seen this mentioned before. However, I'm sure I read something from Canon saying the opposite, except, when I tried to find it again, I couldn't. Either way, I'm not noticing less sharpness.
2. I disagree. While the differences aren't huge, I can get very useable macro images with fine detail at ISO 6400 from the MkIII, something I couldn't do with the MkII. I would estimate in the region of 1 stop improvement, give or take a third of a stop.

That said, the clincher for me was the improved AF and weathersealing. Not only is it night and day for fast moving subjects (such as birds in flight), I am also getting more accurate AF in very low light. It may not be any quicker in low light, but you wouldn't be able to get fast enough shutterspeeds to freeze motion anyway, so for me, the speed of AF in low light is irrelevant.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yes.

UI is better, better set up, dedicated movie button, C1-C3 can auto-update, instant jump to 100% view and back, histogram is outlined so it shows up outdoors, in cam RAW processing if you need to suddenly process and send a raw to someone in the field (rare, but nice when needed), more powerful MFA, etc. (only bad thing is zooming in to view during movies is worse since the button is in a bad place and the move to SET that works wonders in stills modes seems to not work in movie mode)

AF is better, at times for some things, much so

movies are better with better SNR and no moire (but a touch soft and they left out way too many options,
although ML is bringing, but not all of them back)

fps is much better

less mirror blackout and faster trigger response

high iso shadows are less ugly, sometimes makes a huge difference, but certainly not always

SNR is 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop better (taking into account that each ISO on it applies almost 1/3 stop more gain than the same number on the 5D2), modest but every bit helps a little

LCD is better and has more accurate colors (not THAT accurate but not the disaster of the 5D2 LCD), shows up better in the sun

build feels a bit better

while not as crippled, AutoISO is still totally crippled (ridiculous nonsense from Canon marketing dept.)

low iso DR is not improved at all technically it is actually a trace worse even, the single biggest disappointment in the camera perhaps

no replaceable focusing screens

MP are merely the same so no extra detail like on a D800 or reach like on an APS-C or D800

it certainly works better and is more usable, no doubt at all, much more of an overall joy to use, so it is certainly an upgrade, well worth it (unless you do only tripod-based landscapes, in which case it's not worth it in the slightest really), just a bit of a shame the low ISO is not even as good as the old 1Ds3 low ISO nevermind anything close to D600/D800 or even D4 for pixel quality and they did a few silly things like with autoiso and leaving video features absurdly bare bones and crippled (but thankfully ML already fixes some of that and will fix more so that will help a ton, but it can't fix quite all of it)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

I think it's a myth. I did super careful tests with a very sharp lens comparing both and the fine detail and micro-contrast captured on a bill was so close that it's really hard to say. The talk that is looks noticeably softer, as per some rumors, or noticeably sharper, as per others, seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me. Whatever difference there is would take realllllly careful 100% viewing and staring and starting and trying to figure out which one looked what way compared to the other.

(For JPGs it is mixed though, for low ISO and super high contrast the 5D3 jpgs actually showed noticeably better crispness and detail than the 5D2 ones (all NR set to zero, neutral profile, and sharpness +4) but in areas of somewhat lesser contrast the 5D3 jpg I believe may drop detail and smear it more perhaps, didn't test that carefully yet though. 5D3 jpgs can sometimes get black dots or white haloes and stuff that the 5D2 jpgs do not though. At high iso 5D3 jpgs can be made to deliver a bit more detail with a bit less noise than 5D2 it seems. I don't really rely on jpgs more than barely at all though so didn't look into it too much.)

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...
[/quote]

 

[canon816]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...

I upgraded from the 5DII to a 5DIII. Well worth it in every respect! AF performance, FPS, customizable menus, etc...

And yes... noise. It is a huge upgrade from the 5DII. I will admit that at a glance the noise improvement does not appear that significant and DP Review samples indicate this. The part that makes them very different is the quality of the noise and the detail retained at higher ISO.

With the 5DIII the noise is a white pixel noise with very little color noise. I find this is much easier to work with and eliminate in post processing without heavy NR.... however the big thing for me is that there is so much more detail to work with. Edge detail really falls off on the 5DII after you get above ISO 3200 while the 5DIII just holds on right up through 12,800. Even after reducing noise on high ISO shots with a 5DIII the details are amazing.

Without reservation... it is well worth the $$$. (I even sold my 1DIV to pick up another 5DIII !)

 

[tron]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

I think it's a myth. I did super careful tests with a very sharp lens comparing both and the fine detail and micro-contrast captured on a bill was so close that it's really hard to say. The talk that is looks noticeably softer, as per some rumors, or noticeably sharper, as per others, seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me. Whatever difference there is would take realllllly careful 100% viewing and staring and starting and trying to figure out which one looked what way compared to the other.

I have based this conclusion from 2 facts:

Stills: Camera raw products showed the 5D3 to be less sharp than 5D2. Only when the DPP was updated sharpness became equal! So it seems that DPP boosts the sharpening for 5D3 somehow

Video:
http://tweets.planet5d.com/tweets/195145027335356416

After 9:15 It is admitted that 5D3 video is not very sharp to preserve information but it can be nicely
sharpened in Post Processing. Combining this with the fact that Moire is mentioned to be absent then a strong AA filter is the logical conclusion

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...

The Raw files have a huge difference at ISO 12800 and higher, but at ISO 1600 are similar. I bought mine to be able to use 12600 and higher ISO, and my 5D MK II is a total mess at ISO 12600.
It all depends on the definition of High ISO.
For some, the difference in AF speed and accuracy means little, however the auto ISO in manual is very useful. It could be better, but its still a big plus over the MK II.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 5D Mark II, but you can look for reasons to keep it or get one, or you can look for reasons to buy a 5D Mark III. It really depends on your mindset, but its hard to go far wrong.
I took 300+images of a Monster Truck that a friend drives a couple of weeks ago with my 5D Mark II. It worked fine. Then I boxed it up and sold it. I doubt that the Mark III would have done any better.

 

[Tammy]

Hey...

Long time lurker,first time poster.

Have had d60, 10d ,1dmk2, 5d , 5d mk2

Gear is 35L , 85Lii, 100macro, 17-40L , 70-200mk2, and just this week a 24-70L mk2
And 600ex plus stert3, 2x550ex

Anyway,to the point- I've been sitting on the fence about jumping to mk3....
Have mk3 owners here generally upgraded from a mk2 or something older?
Since I now have mk2 of 24-70 and 70-200 plus new flash I'm thinking the mk3 would compliment my gear very well

I shoot mostly family stuff with a little concert photography as a sideline

Hello! I upgraded from a Mk 2 to the Mk 3 and have had absolutely no regrets. While many who specifically shoot landscape on a tripod at base ISO or studio at base ISO with controlled lighting may not benefit much from the Mk 3's improvements, for things like photographing children the markedly improved autofocus and higher frame rate makes a world of difference! The number of keepers increases exponentially. The higher ISO capabilities also help you obtain that extra bit of image quality out of the same shots you would have taken with your Mk 2 under the same settings or it allows you to push it that much more to capture the images that you couldn't take with the Mk 2 or wouldn't choose to save/salvage. The ergonomics/handling of the Mk 3 are noticeably improved. I actually enjoy holding my camera, even when I am not shooting.

If you are not hung up on or restricted by the price, I would highly recommend you consider upgrading. It does seem like you would benefit in both quality of photos and quality of shooting experience. If available in your area, I'd recommend renting the Mk 3 for a day even. For the all around general purpose photography that I like and find myself doing, photographing moving subjects, shooting from ISO 100-12,800, handheld HDR bracketing, etc, It has been worth every penny to me. I could or would not choose to go back to the Mk 2, which I appreciated for what it was and was designed mostly for, but always felt there were areas it was lacking. The Mk 3 has addressed those areas properly. Canon did listen to its user base.

Just thought I'd share, in case that helps. Good luck, whatever you do!

 

[Tammy]

As Mt. Spokane referenced, today I loaded a portrait taken of a friend and I on Saturday, at ISO 12,800. With +12 noise and luminance noise reduction applied in Lightroom I had an acceptable, clean, usable image that I was quite content with. On my Mk 2 I was generally hesitant to resort to ISO 6400.

 

[dstppy]

not upgraded yet, but have a 60D and a mk2 and am selling 4 lenses and both bodies for the next $2800 'sale'.

If they do a '7D' job next year with the 7D mkII (meaning better AF, faster FPS) then I may get a second body again, which makes me leery to sell my 15-75 which I love dearly.