Canon EOS 5D MkIII

[Bob Atkins]

I'd probably not do anything for a month or so. In that time we're going to see a lot of comparisons between the 5D2 and 5D3, plus a shakedown of the 5D3 to see if there are any bugs in it. For most people I suspect the 5D 2 will be fine. The exception might be if you need the fastest most accurate tracking AF performance. I suspect the 5D3 AF system will be better. It should be since it's the same as the one in the 1D X (though the 1D X has extra processors to boost the performance even more). If you don't need the better AF, (presumably) lower noise and the HD video tweaks, the 5D2 might be better value for money.

[Johnny]

I feel somewhat iffy about getting a hardware that is 4 years old.  Any thoughts on a matter?

I think the hardware is just fine. Image quality is still excellent and a step up from the 50D. If you are fine with the focus system you have today you will probably be fine with the focus system in the 5D2. The focus points do not cover the frame as much as the 50D does though. It will require a different approach.

I made some of my best prints when I was using my old XTi/400D. You have to work a bit harder when you don`t have super fancy autofocus. I would not mind a brand new 5D3 but I do not need it. Better glass on the other hand is always welcome.

[KeithB]

Here is Ken Rockwell's Opinionated take:
"So, yes, the Mark III is better than the Mark II, but if you actually work for a living and the extra $1,300 means something to you, get the Mark II while you still can and put the money into some fast lenses. DSLRs are a rich man's sport, and most of you guys are doing OK, so if you have the dough, of course get the Mark III. The color-fringe correction is a big deal for me for use with Canon's ultrawide lenses; you can see the difference in real pictures, unlike this high ISO or high megapixel baloney, which you can't.

As always, only you can answer Is It Worth It — to you. If you earn your living with it, it is. If not, it's a toy, so it's a question of how much cash you've got to throw at this hobby, The 5D Mark II is still a superb camera, better than anything from Nikon — until the D800 came out. Even the original 5D is better technically than anything from Nikon under $8,000 or the D800, and used 5Ds go for about $1,000, total. The worst thing about the original 5D are its crappy ergonomics and hideous LCD; its images are spectacular. "


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

[Johnny]

He has at least 50 different opinions on the same matter. But sometimes you will find something useful. He is a techie guy, probably has a lot of knowlegde, just wish he could be more consistent.

I agree that the 5D3 is a bit pricey compared to the D800.

[Mike]

Thanks... I kinda made that decision, but always feel better getting approval from the guys :-)

[KeithB]

Here is someone a little less...opinionated...

http://www.lightandmatter.org/2012/equipment-reviews/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-5d-mark-ii-who-should-buy-the-mark-iii/

[Bob Atkins]

Can't say I put much faith in KR. His stuff tends to be controversail/opinionated and not always based in fact.

Don't think he actually uses a 5D for example.

I have a 5D and use it for portrait work and when I need full frame for lens testing. It's a good camera but the AF system is somewhat basic by today's standards (though works fine for my needs) and it lacks Live View which I find very useful when testing lenses of when using older manual focus lenses adapted to EOS use. Doesn't have video either, though that's not something I personally miss.

My primary camera is an EOS 7D. In most respects it outperforms or equals the 5D except when a full frame sensor is needed.

I've used and reviewed the 5D MkII, though I don't actually own one. If I did and I was happy with it, I'd see little need to "upgrade" to a 5D MkIII. However if I was unhappy with the AF and/or I was into serious video work and/or if I needed more very low light capability and/or if I needed faster continuous shooting I'd certainly think about upgrading. The 5D MkIII seems to be significantly better in those areas. Of course if I REALLY needed the best possible performance increase in all those areas then I might look past the 5D MkIII to the EOS-1D X and spend even more money!

If I was going to upgrade my 5D, it would be to a 5D MkII rather than a 5D MkIII because of the cost difference.

If I didn't own any lenses and I was starting from scratch, I'd certainly be taking a very close look at the Nikon D800. Seems to be a very capable camera at a lower cost than the 5D MkIII.

[bmpress]

Bob,
Re your use of canon 5d for your portrait work: Can you explain what you gain by using this camera compared to using your 7d with a 1.8 or 1.4 lens?
Thanks,
Barry

[Bob Atkins]

For an equivalent view, you blur the background more with full frame than with APS-C. So, for example, an the 85/1.8 on my 5D gives me more background blur than my 50/1.8 on my 5D, even though they both have approximately the same angle of view when shot from the same distance from the subject.

The 5D may also have a slight edge in image quality, even though the absolute resolution is slightly lower.

[bmpress]

Thank you, Bob. It helps me decide whether to stay with my 7d or sell and go to 5d mark 3. My decision seems to boil down to birds. The APC really is superior for that application and I don't know whether I would miss the extended range.

[Bob Atkins]

If I was a "birds in flight" photographer I'd probably stick with the 7D.  AF is good, frame rate is good and APS-C gives you better resolution than an equally cropped 5D MkIII image would (and it's also slightly better than a cropped Nikon D800 image would be). The only reason to change to a 5D MkIII would be if the AF system of the 5D MkIII turns out to be much better than that of the 7D for tracking small moving subjects. I doubt that will be the case, but I'd wait until I saw comments from one of the leading "birds in flight" photographers on the subject before I bought anything.

[Mike]

Hello All,
I got a little bit of hands on time with Canon 5D Mark II tonight.  I noticed that its AF system is a bit frustrating – IQ of it is far less then Canon 7D or even 50 D.  Maybe I’m not used to the camera or I’m not worthy of a good camera – but this is quite worrisome to me.

[Bob Atkins]

MkII or MkIII?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AF of the 7D could beat that of the 5D MkII. However image quality from the 5D MkII should NOT be lower than that of the 7D, and certainly not lower than that of the 50D - unless you are shooting the 5D MkII(I) at a much higher ISO setting than that of the 7D/50D

[Mike]

Hi Bob,
Unlike you I don’t expect getting a new camera for a few years.  It seems excessive to splurge $3500, however if that’s what I got to do – I guess I would have to do that.  As somebody said long ago “I’m not rich enough to buy cheap stuff..” Well, not cheap but as we all agreed technology moved along in 4 years…

[Bob Atkins]

We all have to decide whether we want the "state of the art' items or items that are "good enough". Very often "good enough" really is good enough - in fact not just good enough but perfectly fine. For example the 24-70/2.8L  USM is a very good lens. Is it quite as good as the 24-70/2.8L II USM? No, on an optical bench the MkII lens tests better. Would most photographers notice the difference? Probably not. I'm sure there is a relatively small group of photographers who would, buy you have to ask yourself if you are in that group.

Not everyone needs or can even benefit from the very latest technology. If you can, then it's often an expensive ride!