5D MK III upgrade or D800?

I've owned my 5D MK II for just over a year now, and I love it except when it hunts for focus.

The 5D MK III is the answer to many people's prayers in terms of focus, but at an increased price (for now atleast).

I mainly shoot portraits/candids and am just getting into weddings and event's.
Currently I own 3 Primes (35/50/135) and 2 5DMK II's (one in the shop for cleaning/inspection). I am on the verge of getting rid of one of my primes and either one or both of my bodies.


My question is should I sell my two bodies for a 5D MK III? Or should I keep what I have and save up my earning from my future weddings/portraitures and buy the 5D MK III later. The main reason I want the MK III is for the ISO and AF (during events/weddings).

Also, I've been playing around with the idea that for the same price of the 5D MK III, I can get a D800 and their new 24-85 lens (This would mean I would sell my 35 and one of the two bodies and make up the difference).

I'm looking for suggestions, opinions and experiences from others. (

Thank you

Get the D700 instead. It has the ISO of the 5D3 as well as the AF, despite being 5 years older. It also costs $1300 less if you buy it new and $1600 less if you buy it gently used (which we did when we bought two).

If it comes at the expense of having 1 camera instead of 2, I wouldn't make the switch to the 5D3 or the D800.

As for the D700, it's a fine camera no doubt. If you go that route, make sure you are comfortable about the 12MP resolution since you've been shooting with the 5D2. The AF is definitely an upgrade, however the AF on the 5D3 is better than the D700. In fact it's better than the D3 and D3s. I can't speak for the D4 since I've never used that camera.

Thank you guys for the the D700 suggestion, I never thought about aquiring a D700 to be honest, but now I am strongly considering it.

I have two D700s, and I have no plans to upgrade. Just be aware the Nikon system is generally a little more expensive than Canon. If I was buying now I'd probably get the D800, apparently the AF is a little faster. I'd probably wait for the rumoured D600/D400, full frame at a budget price.

Don't get the 24-85 F2.8 - 4G. Variable aperture lenses are annoying, usually lower quality, and the D700 focuses better with F2.8 lenses - though my 16-35 F4 VR is pretty nice. The Nikon 24-70 is probably be best standard zoom ever made for an SLR camera, sharp and colorful, it's a really nice lens. Robust too, and it focuses very well.

tim wrote in post #14666225
I have two D700s, and I have no plans to upgrade. Just be aware the Nikon system is generally a little more expensive than Canon. If I was buying now I'd probably get the D800, apparently the AF is a little faster. I'd probably wait for the rumoured D600/D400, full frame at a budget price.

Don't get the 24-85 F2.8 - 4G. Variable aperture lenses are annoying, usually lower quality, and the D700 focuses better with F2.8 lenses - though my 16-35 F4 VR is pretty nice. The Nikon 24-70 is probably be best standard zoom ever made for an SLR camera, sharp and colorful, it's a really nice lens. Robust too, and it focuses very well.

Thank you,
If I could use my 50 and 135on a Nikon body I would do it in a heartbeat! Canon has such amazing prime lenses.

With the savings from the D700 instead of a D800, that 24-70 is looking more and more tempting. Although what peaked my interest on the 24-85 lens is that it's new tech with 2 Aspherical Elements and that it has VR. I'm still trying to do as much research before making the massive plunge!

Nikon isn't great for really fast primes yet, but they're getting better.

I really liked the IS on the 17-55 when I used Canon, but for some reason I don't seem to need it as much with the D700 and 24-70. Maybe it's something to do with full frame, maybe it's the heavier camera, but I'm finding less need for it. I'd like it, but I don't think i'd sacrifice F2.8 @ 70mm for it.

Low light focus on the D700 requires a speedlite. The SB900 is pretty heavy, it eventually breaks every D700 hotshoe if it's left up there all the time. The lighter flashes are better, and hopefully the D800 has that flaw fixed. But it's still a great camera.

Bond_Savingsbond wrote in post #14666337
Thank you,
If I could use my 50 and 135on a Nikon body I would do it in a heartbeat! Canon has such amazing prime lenses.

With the savings from the D700 instead of a D800, that 24-70 is looking more and more tempting. Although what peaked my interest on the 24-85 lens is that it's new tech with 2 Aspherical Elements and that it has VR. I'm still trying to do as much research before making the massive plunge!

If you are talking about the 50L and 135L, then yeah, you are out of luck with Nikon. Otherwise they've pretty much caught up with their primes with the 24G, 35G, and 85G. The 24-70G is great. So is the 70-200 VRII.

Again, if switching means not having 2 bodies, I would hang tight until you can actually afford 2 bodies, be it the 5D3 or D800.

nicksan wrote in post #14666434
If you are talking about the 50L and 135L, then yeah, you are out of luck with Nikon. Otherwise they've pretty much caught up with their primes with the 24G, 35G, and 85G. The 24-70G is great. So is the 70-200 VRII.

Again, if switching means not having 2 bodies, I would hang tight until you can actually afford 2 bodies, be it the 5D3 or D800.

Yes they are the 50 1.2 and 135L. I had to go through a few lenses and a lot of overtime hours(I actually did not enjoy using the amazing 70-200 MK II for events) to get to these three lenses. And I thought I would like the 35L over my Rokinon 35, but after shooting a wedding and then a photoshoot the following day, I feel that these are the two lenses I need will really need for a long time, especially for portraits.

My plan was: Nikon for zooms and Canon for stickly primes.

Sometimes I wish I never gotten an L lens, because I want them all

Lens prices, if you consider used and refurb, upset the money calculations for Nikon pretty quickly, as does their battery grip and even battery charger prices.

And if your 5d2 constantly hunts for AF that sounds like some problem I don't see with mine. Sure the 7D et al AF is nicer but it doesn't really prevent hunting.

Yeah, I never had issues using the center AF point on the 5D2. The 5D3 is definitely sweeter and more efficient, but I shot weddings fine with the 5D2.

I say keep both bodies and switch one to a 5dIII down the road. You have great Canon primes which you are likely to miss if you switch your whole gear.

Get 5D III kills my D700 AF for sure. Don't forget 70-200 IS II the best zoom ever made. As far as D800, look no further than my avatar .

tim wrote in post #14666378
Low light focus on the D700 requires a speedlite.

Not in my experience. The only times I've felt the need for a flash in the dark have been when it's been too dark to shoot, not too dark to focus.

brokensocial wrote in post #14667648
Not in my experience. The only times I've felt the need for a flash in the dark have been when it's been too dark to shoot, not too dark to focus.

Shooting couples doing their energetic first dance in a room lit only by fairy lights it took 1-2 seconds to focus, it was awful. With a speedlite it was very quick.