this made me think a bit...

Hey all...

Ok i went out shooting a bit today and ran into some fellow canon shooters. I was approached by one of the guys and he asked me how I like the 5d mark iii.... i told him its a fantastic camera but I just dont feel like I use it for what it can fully do. He then told me jokingly well if you want a 5d mark ii and a 24-70 2.8 for the mark iii it is available.

It kinda made me think a bit. What do you guys think?

I couldn't do it personally... it depends on what you shoot I guess... I went from the 7D to the 5DIII because I wanted full frame, and I wanted a stellar AF system.

I'm not commenting on the financial equity of the deal. Even though you don't use it "for what it can fully do," are you certain that the 5D-II will meet your needs.

I own both the 2 and the 3 and I find the focus capabilities of the Mark 3 noticeably better, especially when using the non-central points.

There may be other differences between the two bodies that could affect your decision.

Ya the thought of loosing the amazing autofocus was a thought but for what I shoot i dont really need it. I had a mark ii before and didnt mind the autofocus. I am more of a stationary to non fast moving subjects...

milleniumking wrote in post #16724362
Hey all...

Ok i went out shooting a bit today and ran into some fellow canon shooters. I was approached by one of the guys and he asked me how I like the 5d mark iii.... i told him its a fantastic camera but I just dont feel like I use it for what it can fully do. He then told me jokingly well if you want a 5d mark ii and a 24-70 2.8 for the mark iii it is available.

It kinda made me think a bit. What do you guys think?

Hi millenjumking, I have a 5D III and some good quality L glass. The capabilities of this equipment is way beyond my personal capabilities. However, I won't trade down because I like the fact that I (me) am the limiting factor and that I can never blame the equipment.

My personal challenge is to improve so that the equipment becomes the limiting factor. Trust me - I have a long way to go. Stretch yourself, don't limit your scope by downgrading as to do so would be a negative message to yourself that suggests that you will never be better than you are now.

OP, why did you move up to the MKIII in the first place? That might help answer the question.

Hey, if it's a low mileage/great shape body, and a good copy of the brick... why not?

If you think you would use the capabilities of a 24-70, then you're advancing, not downgrading or moving laterally.

In a lot of things, i find you're better to have a few of the next-best, than only one of the best.

example: I'd rather have a 5 year old snowmobile and a 5 year old dirt-bike/quad, than just a brand new snowmobile. You actually get more fun and use with the extra machine. I'm sure this theory doesn't quite copy over to photography, but in some respects (such as in your case) it could.

Now, if it's just the thought of owning another red ring... um, maybe not.

Blubayou wrote in post #16724473
OP, why did you move up to the MKIII in the first place? That might help answer the question.

This, and given that you make a point in your sig to say "down to 2 lenses" as if you've done so for a reason, why are you wanting to downgrade your cam and add a lens? Seems counterproductive to what you've done thus far.

1Tanker wrote in post #16724558
Hey, if it's a low mileage/great shape body, and a good copy of the brick... why not?

If you think you would use the capabilities of a 24-70, then you're advancing, not downgrading or moving laterally.

In a lot of things, i find you're better to have a few of the next-best, than only one of the best.

example: I'd rather have a 5 year old snowmobile and a 5 year old dirt-bike/quad, than just a brand new snowmobile. You actually get more fun and use with the extra machine. I'm sure this theory doesn't quite copy over to photography, but in some respects (such as in your case) it could.

Now, if it's just the thought of owning another red ring... um, maybe not.

I like the logic. I dont see it a step down at all. On paper going from the 3 to 2 yes it is but, in the end they do the same thing right? Mark 3 just makes it easier!

milleniumking wrote in post #16724573
I like the logic. I dont see it a step down at all. On paper going from the 3 to 2 yes it is but, in the end they do the same thing right? Mark 3 just makes it easier!

A 24-70 and a kit lens does the same thing too.

Other than the fantastic AF and a few features, the MkII and the MkIII are the same camera. If you don't need the AF then a MkII with the 24-70 may be a better option than a MkIII and your 50mm

Boone13 wrote in post #16724572
This, and given that you make a point in your sig to say "down to 2 lenses" as if you've done so for a reason, why are you wanting to downgrade your cam and add a lens? Seems counterproductive to what you've done thus far.

Yeah, i noticed that as well.
What say ye, milleniumking?

Blubayou wrote in post #16724473
OP, why did you move up to the MKIII in the first place? That might help answer the question.

He probably had the unfortunate luck of starting a thread on this forum titled "Moving up to FF. 6D or 5D3?"

ryanshoots wrote in post #16724590
He probably had the unfortunate luck of starting a thread on this forum titled "Moving up to FF. 6D or 5D3?"

Hahaha, we all know where that would lead one to.

ryanshoots wrote in post #16724590
He probably had the unfortunate luck of starting a thread on this forum titled "Moving up to FF. 6D or 5D3?"

Op states they were shooting with a MkII before moving up to a MkIII. I too looked long and hard at the MkIII and after playing with one for a while concluded that the only practical difference for me was the AF and I almost always manually focus anyway to it would have been a total waste on me. Could be the same for the OP.