5d mk2 to 5d mk3

Has anybody upgraded from the 2 to the 3? Was it worth it?

from the several threads that echo your questions, the answer is:

50% yes, 50% no

mike3767 wrote in post #14427081
Has anybody upgraded from the 2 to the 3? Was it worth it?

hum, no I don't think anyone has done that yet.

Yes I did, and so far I happy with the decision. Although I wish Canon would hurry up and make the battery grip available.

Went from the 5D "classic" to the Mark II and then Mark III. Everytime was magical. I love the 5D line from Canon. Was it worth it? For me it was...

The answer greatly depends on what you shoot. If stationary subjects only...landscapes, portraits..then you may not need the advanced features.

But if you shoot action shots such as sports or wildlife...the answer is likely yes. As I shoot both, my 5DII goes on consignment late this week after I have checked out the 5DIII that arrives tomorrow.

Ok.... Went from 2 to 3. If i had to do it all over again? Probably would. Is it worth twice to price? Probably not- but only you can decide that. For me, the much improved focus system and feature enhancements, combined with increased FPS made it worth it.That might not matter to a wedding guy or studio guy, or maybe it would. It would depend on what you are looking for the camera to do. Too many people worry about gear- I know that for me switching certainly was NOT a result of having outgrown the 5d2's IQ and capabilities. I had the opportunity to sell my Mk2 for nearly what I paid for it, so no loss really, just spending more for the 3. If you have the opportunity- borrow or rent a 3 to make sure its worth spending the extra money.

Kev

i went from 2 to 3 too. maybe my mark2 is a faulty unit, whenever i shoot with it, my objects eyes tend to have like a hazy effect that render them to become not sharp. i rarely get a sharp photos out from it, and i always envy my friends photos shot by Nikon, until i tried the mark3.... All that changes

now is it worth it? definitely worth it especially i managed to sell off my mark2 at a good price and im very satisfied with my photos produced by the mark3, now i know what are sharp photos meant .

I disagree with the stationary subjects and portraits not benefiting. The reason I say this is because I have seen the 5D2 not AF on stationary objects in decent to low light using the outer AF points. I shoot 90% portraits and the additional cross type AF points and the fact that there are so many is a great benefit IMHO. I never liked focus/recompose, and I don't ever have to do that now.

More like 95% to 5%

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14427752
More like 95% to 5%

The other 50% are the people that haven't had enough behind-the-wheel time (or are just reading specs) and get frustrated excepting it to be a literal 5DmarkII version II, and start making "5d3 = below expectation" threads that keep popping up once a while here

I'd have paid $4k for it actually, so yeah, it's worth it. It's basically a 1D in a 5D body, so if you look at it from that stand point, yes it's worth it.

Yes if you have fast prime lens such as 50L or 85L, etc. Successful focus percentage is significantly better. I upgrade from 5Dc to 5D3.

If you've had a mK2 then you really can't fail to be impressed with the Mk3. Apart from the similar IQ everything else is a massive upgrade. For me it was definitely worth it and I would do it all over again. From all the people I've spoken to who have gone from the 2 to the 3 none of them are disappointed so that would make it 100% positive for the the folks I know.

Have 5D2 & 5D3 one my desk, which worth every single cent