Needs some help on purchase MK II vs MKIII

Well I want to get a better primary or back up camera. Actually the 5D MKII is a great camera that I shoot with now. I shoot mostly nature and glamour. I was looking at buying a 5D MKIII but came across a great deal on 5DMK II for 1600 with 300 clicks on it. So I would share batteries etc.

If I buy the 5D MKIII I believe the low light shooting would be better and I heard the A/F also. Just not sure if it would be like 1500 dollars better. Plus I'll have to check I dont believe they share the same batteries.

My current back up is a T2i and I rarely use it. If I had two decent cameras. I could have two different lens on at once...depending on the shoot? If I bought the 5D Mk III that would be my primary.

Thank you in advance for any input

5dmk2 and 5dmk3 same batteries. I just went from 5dmk2 to 5dmk3 and like the AF. But I am hoping to use it more for shooting sports in low light.

They use the same battery, but not the same grip.

The A/F is really in another league. Lots of other features including dual card slots, in camera HDR, 6FPS continuous shooting, silent shutter mode and numerous other minor features.

Don't believe the reports stating, "only minor improvements over MKII." Test drive one yourself if possible. The only thing that will stop you from buying a MKIII, is not being able to afford it.

ean36 wrote in post #14826033
Don't believe the reports stating, "only minor improvements over MKII." Test drive one yourself if possible. The only thing that will stop you from buying a MKIII, is not being able to afford it.

That... and perhaps the results from a logical cost-benefit analysis of whether twice the price of the 5D3 gives you twice the results and value over a 5D2 for what you shoot.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14826147
That... and perhaps the results from a logical cost-benefit analysis of whether twice the price of the 5D3 gives you twice the results and value over a 5D2 for what you shoot.

Team I agree with what your saying.......money is not the issue. Just want to make sure it's worth it. Sounds like the HDR, A/F and low light is a big improvement. I'll wait for some more replies, but leaning to the upgrade now.

Thank you again

Cost/benefit analysis are often strongly influenced by need OR want. Just my opinion, if you use one of these for a few days, and you can afford it, chances are you will make the purchase. I don't believe I could have grabbed this with the MKII. It's a candid taken in one of those dimly lit bounce house places.

The mkiii must be worth it for the much improved AF - so long as $ is not a big factor. Read the Lensrentals test on AF performance of the newer Canon lenses and the AF in the mkiii and the 1dx if you need convincing.

Nothing new can be said outside of several other 'should i buy a 5d3' threads out there other than 'Its worth it, just get it'

so.. Its worth it, just get it

ean36 wrote in post #14827119
Cost/benefit analysis are often strongly influenced by need OR want. Just my opinion, if you use one of these for a few days, and you can afford it, chances are you will make the purchase. I don't believe I could have grabbed this with the MKII. It's a candid taken in one of those dimly lit bounce house places.

This is an equivalent light level of f2.8 at 1/250th at ISO 3200. If your 5D2 or 7D has an issue AF'ing in that kind of light, you need to send it into Canon for review. That should not be an issue to shoot in, as that is not all that dark.

I appreciate all the "it's worth it, get it", but that is about as subjective as it gets, even worse than "what is acceptable ISO from what body", and "what has the best IQ" discussions. About the only reasonable answer is really "rent a body and test it for what you shoot", and if you like what it gives you over the 5D2 for the price differential, then it truly is "worth it and you should get it".

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14827307
This is an equivalent light level of f2.8 at 1/250th at ISO 3200. If your 5D2 or 7D has an issue AF'ing in that kind of light, you need to send it into Canon for review. That should not be an issue to shoot in, as that is not all that dark.

I appreciate all the "it's worth it, get it", but that is about as subjective as it gets, even worse than "what is acceptable ISO from what body", and "what has the best IQ" discussions. About the only reasonable answer is really "rent a body and test it for what you shoot", and if you like what it gives you over the 5D2 for the price differential, then it truly is "worth it and you should get it".

When you want 1/250 to stop your moving subject and your lens bottoms out at 5.6 at 340mm you need 12800 iso and decent focus ability.

Didn't use those words, but that's what I meant.

ean36 wrote in post #14827731
Didn't use those words, but that's what I meant.

I was paraphrasing several different replies, not specifically yours. The reply I had to your quote was around whether the 5D2 could have nailed the shot you posted.

the auto focus on the mark2 has caused me to miss the shot in so many situations. mark3 has been a saving grace. I still use the mark2 about 40% of the time but i go to the mark3 to "get the shot". The price of the mark3 is just murder but if your shooting style demands the best then getting the best means mark3.

To me earlier for what I shoot I would have required 1 series and 5d or 5dmk2 for portrait stuff. Now I can do both and probably better with just one body (5dmk3).

I rarely reach for my 7D to shoot wildlife as the 5DIII frame rate is good enough. That was not true with 5DII. 5DII was excellent for still subjects. But 5DIII does it all....still and action....and does both very dang well.