# Who upgraded from 5d mk2 to mk3 ?



## WhoIreland (Sep 22, 2012)

Hey...

Long time lurker,first time poster.

Have had d60, 10d ,1dmk2, 5d , 5d mk2

Gear is 35L , 85Lii, 100macro, 17-40L , 70-200mk2, and just this week a 24-70L mk2
And 600ex plus stert3, 2x550ex

Anyway,to the point- I've been sitting on the fence about jumping to mk3....
Have mk3 owners here generally upgraded from a mk2 or something older?
Since I now have mk2 of 24-70 and 70-200 plus new flash I'm thinking the mk3 would compliment my gear very well

I shoot mostly family stuff with a little concert photography as a sideline


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 22, 2012)

I did. The m3 is so much better in every way possible. Best choice


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 22, 2012)

I've got a mate who had the 5D mk1 that he sold for the 5Dmk2 on release, which he then sold for the 5D mk3 on release.

He actually offered the mk2 to me for $1900 the week before the mk3 was released, I passed. he ended up selling it on commision and got $1850 out of it. Then he got the mk3 a few months later in Hong Kong (he lives there part time so no worries about world-wide warranty).

Good thing I didn't get the mk2 from him second hand, especially with that deal last week, 5D mk2 and Pixma 9000 for $1600 all-up or something. Damn i wish i lived in the US, i so would have nabbed that...


----------



## Click (Sep 22, 2012)

I did too... upgraded from a mk II to mk III  I prefer the mk III by far.


----------



## Philco (Sep 22, 2012)

My lens kit matches yours really closely, and I definitely trust the 5DIII to nail focus in ways that I never enjoyed with the 5DII. My keeper rate is definitely higher than with the 5DII due to focus, especially in darker situations when people are moving. For shooting music, I love being able to trust that I will nail focus at f1.4, and go to ISO 3200 or 6400 without any problems.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 22, 2012)

I upgraded and I think it was worth it.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 22, 2012)

+1, upgraded from 5D2 to 5D3, although I still kept the 5D2. It's a huge jump, just the difference in AF performance is worth the difference to me, but the high ISO performance and other features are great too.


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 23, 2012)

I upgraded, but mainly because I shoot wildlife and landscapes. My 7D can't cope in low light, while the 5D MkII could focus better in such conditions, but couldn't track and I couldn't adjust the focus point and still get a lock. The 5D MkIII gives me the best of both worlds, it can track and it can focus in low light, provided there is some sort of contrast. It is much more of an allround camera, so it would be ideal for travel when I can't take two bodies. However, if I was only shooting landscapes, I would not have bothered upgrading, as it doesn't offer enough of an improvement (although I do like the colours it produces). For family stuff, it probably depends whether or not you have fast moving children .


----------



## MarioMachado (Sep 23, 2012)

my mk2 was kind of new, I saw mk3 and I could not resist, I sold mk2 and got mk3 with no regrets! I do want a 1DX but cant afford now, so really happy with the 2nd best dSLR of the world


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2012)

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter? 

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2012)

I did, sent back the MK III and bought another MK II. Then, I happened to snag a MK III for 2750 last week, so I'll keep that one. $3500 was too much for the improvements to my type of shooting. $2750 seems right to me.
I just sold my 2nd copy of the MK II for a $200 profit, so I'm waiting for the MK III to arrive tomorrow. Having already had one, I know it well already, I took 1100 images before returning the first one. The thing that annoyed me most was the small difficult to see AF points in low light. There are workarounds, but they are klutzy. Other than that, everything is a big plus.


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 24, 2012)

tron said:


> 1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?
> 
> 2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?
> 
> In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...



1. I've seen this mentioned before. However, I'm sure I read something from Canon saying the opposite, except, when I tried to find it again, I couldn't. Either way, I'm not noticing less sharpness.
2. I disagree. While the differences aren't huge, I can get very useable macro images with fine detail at ISO 6400 from the MkIII, something I couldn't do with the MkII. I would estimate in the region of 1 stop improvement, give or take a third of a stop.

That said, the clincher for me was the improved AF and weathersealing. Not only is it night and day for fast moving subjects (such as birds in flight), I am also getting more accurate AF in very low light. It may not be any quicker in low light, but you wouldn't be able to get fast enough shutterspeeds to freeze motion anyway, so for me, the speed of AF in low light is irrelevant.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes.

UI is better, better set up, dedicated movie button, C1-C3 can auto-update, instant jump to 100% view and back, histogram is outlined so it shows up outdoors, in cam RAW processing if you need to suddenly process and send a raw to someone in the field (rare, but nice when needed), more powerful MFA, etc. (only bad thing is zooming in to view during movies is worse since the button is in a bad place and the move to SET that works wonders in stills modes seems to not work in movie mode)

AF is better, at times for some things, much so

movies are better with better SNR and no moire (but a touch soft and they left out way too many options, 
although ML is bringing, but not all of them back)

fps is much better

less mirror blackout and faster trigger response

high iso shadows are less ugly, sometimes makes a huge difference, but certainly not always

SNR is 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop better (taking into account that each ISO on it applies almost 1/3 stop more gain than the same number on the 5D2), modest but every bit helps a little

LCD is better and has more accurate colors (not THAT accurate but not the disaster of the 5D2 LCD), shows up better in the sun

build feels a bit better

while not as crippled, AutoISO is still totally crippled (ridiculous nonsense from Canon marketing dept.)

low iso DR is not improved at all  technically it is actually a trace worse even, the single biggest disappointment in the camera perhaps

no replaceable focusing screens 

MP are merely the same so no extra detail like on a D800 or reach like on an APS-C or D800

it certainly works better and is more usable, no doubt at all, much more of an overall joy to use, so it is certainly an upgrade, well worth it (unless you do only tripod-based landscapes, in which case it's not worth it in the slightest really), just a bit of a shame the low ISO is not even as good as the old 1Ds3 low ISO nevermind anything close to D600/D800 or even D4 for pixel quality and they did a few silly things like with autoiso and leaving video features absurdly bare bones and crippled (but thankfully ML already fixes some of that and will fix more so that will help a ton, but it can't fix quite all of it)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

tron said:


> 1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?



I think it's a myth. I did super careful tests with a very sharp lens comparing both and the fine detail and micro-contrast captured on a bill was so close that it's really hard to say. The talk that is looks noticeably softer, as per some rumors, or noticeably sharper, as per others, seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me. Whatever difference there is would take realllllly careful 100% viewing and staring and starting and trying to figure out which one looked what way compared to the other.

(For JPGs it is mixed though, for low ISO and super high contrast the 5D3 jpgs actually showed noticeably better crispness and detail than the 5D2 ones (all NR set to zero, neutral profile, and sharpness +4) but in areas of somewhat lesser contrast the 5D3 jpg I believe may drop detail and smear it more perhaps, didn't test that carefully yet though. 5D3 jpgs can sometimes get black dots or white haloes and stuff that the 5D2 jpgs do not though. At high iso 5D3 jpgs can be made to deliver a bit more detail with a bit less noise than 5D2 it seems. I don't really rely on jpgs more than barely at all though so didn't look into it too much.)

2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?

In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...
[/quote]


----------



## canon816 (Sep 24, 2012)

tron said:


> 1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?
> 
> 2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?
> 
> In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...



I upgraded from the 5DII to a 5DIII. Well worth it in every respect! AF performance, FPS, customizable menus, etc...

And yes... noise. It is a huge upgrade from the 5DII. I will admit that at a glance the noise improvement does not appear that significant and DP Review samples indicate this. The part that makes them very different is the quality of the noise and the detail retained at higher ISO. 

With the 5DIII the noise is a white pixel noise with very little color noise. I find this is much easier to work with and eliminate in post processing without heavy NR.... however the big thing for me is that there is so much more detail to work with. Edge detail really falls off on the 5DII after you get above ISO 3200 while the 5DIII just holds on right up through 12,800. Even after reducing noise on high ISO shots with a 5DIII the details are amazing.

Without reservation... it is well worth the $$$. (I even sold my 1DIV to pick up another 5DIII !)


----------



## tron (Sep 25, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?
> ...



I have based this conclusion from 2 facts:

Stills: Camera raw products showed the 5D3 to be less sharp than 5D2. Only when the DPP was updated sharpness became equal! So it seems that DPP boosts the sharpening for 5D3 somehow

Video: 
http://tweets.planet5d.com/tweets/195145027335356416

After 9:15 It is admitted that 5D3 video is not very sharp to preserve information but it can be nicely 
sharpened in Post Processing. Combining this with the fact that Moire is mentioned to be absent then a strong AA filter is the logical conclusion


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2012)

tron said:


> 1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?
> 
> 2. Or the fact that raw files at high ISO are not that different - according to DPreview samples -between 5D2 and 5D3? Are all of you shooting jpgs only and are so impressed with 5D3?
> 
> In order to not be misunderstood: I am interested in 5D3 too. I am just having second thoughts ...


The Raw files have a huge difference at ISO 12800 and higher, but at ISO 1600 are similar. I bought mine to be able to use 12600 and higher ISO, and my 5D MK II is a total mess at ISO 12600.
It all depends on the definition of High ISO.
For some, the difference in AF speed and accuracy means little, however the auto ISO in manual is very useful. It could be better, but its still a big plus over the MK II.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 5D Mark II, but you can look for reasons to keep it or get one, or you can look for reasons to buy a 5D Mark III. It really depends on your mindset, but its hard to go far wrong.
I took 300+images of a Monster Truck that a friend drives a couple of weeks ago with my 5D Mark II. It worked fine. Then I boxed it up and sold it. I doubt that the Mark III would have done any better.


----------



## Tammy (Sep 25, 2012)

WhoIreland said:


> Hey...
> 
> Long time lurker,first time poster.
> 
> ...



Hello! I upgraded from a Mk 2 to the Mk 3 and have had absolutely no regrets. While many who specifically shoot landscape on a tripod at base ISO or studio at base ISO with controlled lighting may not benefit much from the Mk 3's improvements, for things like photographing children the markedly improved autofocus and higher frame rate makes a world of difference! The number of keepers increases exponentially. The higher ISO capabilities also help you obtain that extra bit of image quality out of the same shots you would have taken with your Mk 2 under the same settings or it allows you to push it that much more to capture the images that you couldn't take with the Mk 2 or wouldn't choose to save/salvage. The ergonomics/handling of the Mk 3 are noticeably improved. I actually enjoy holding my camera, even when I am not shooting.

If you are not hung up on or restricted by the price, I would highly recommend you consider upgrading. It does seem like you would benefit in both quality of photos and quality of shooting experience. If available in your area, I'd recommend renting the Mk 3 for a day even. For the all around general purpose photography that I like and find myself doing, photographing moving subjects, shooting from ISO 100-12,800, handheld HDR bracketing, etc, It has been worth every penny to me. I could or would not choose to go back to the Mk 2, which I appreciated for what it was and was designed mostly for, but always felt there were areas it was lacking. The Mk 3 has addressed those areas properly. Canon did listen to its user base.

Just thought I'd share, in case that helps. Good luck, whatever you do!


----------



## Tammy (Sep 25, 2012)

As Mt. Spokane referenced, today I loaded a portrait taken of a friend and I on Saturday, at ISO 12,800. With +12 noise and luminance noise reduction applied in Lightroom I had an acceptable, clean, usable image that I was quite content with. On my Mk 2 I was generally hesitant to resort to ISO 6400.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 25, 2012)

not upgraded yet, but have a 60D and a mk2 and am selling 4 lenses and both bodies for the next $2800 'sale'.

If they do a '7D' job next year with the 7D mkII (meaning better AF, faster FPS) then I may get a second body again, which makes me leery to sell my 15-75 which I love dearly.


----------



## jimk5d3 (Sep 25, 2012)

hello i had a 5dii for 2 years and upgraded to 5diii, i am not a pro just a father of a 10 year old and a 7 year old, as much as i loved my mk2 i would never go back, there is no comparison when it comes to autofocus system, i have 24-105l 4.0, 70-200 mk2 2.8, 16-35 mk2 2.8, i had the 24-70 mk1 2.8. 5dmk2 could never keep up with my kids even with the excelent 70-200 mk2 2.8L, my 5dmk3 has no problem what so ever with tracking my kids while they are riding there bikes towards me and then pass me, my finger on the trigger shots are all in focus and sharp. yes i mostly shoot jpegs when shooting action, shoot jpegs and raws when shooting portraits, jpegs are way sharper /better from the 5d3 and raws are about 1 stop better, i have only used dpp for raws, the camera just feels and handles so much better, i have over 15k shots with the 5dmk2 and have compaired with photos from 5d3 that i got from BH the 2nd day it was released, no matter how many times i compair photos the 5d3 photos are always a bit sharper/cleaner. no rgrets love this camera and cant wait to get my hands on 24-70 mk2 2.8l


----------



## MartinM (Sep 25, 2012)

I got a 5D Mk.3 and sold it again. Since I am not earning money with this, I had to get some funding for larger telephoto lens. Now I decided to sell of my 5d2 and order a 6D. This will allow me the 24-70 II and something larger than my 70-200L. I have more flexibility without too much of a loss. Additionally I don't need hike around with my Samsung Galaxy and missuse it as GPS for tagging my pictures.

Cheers
Martin


----------



## suburbia (Sep 25, 2012)

I did as I was never that bowled over by the MKII (I bought it on a whim when shopping for a new lens for a travel shoot a year and half before the MKIII was released ), I found the movie mode unintuitive so never used it. 

I really enjoyed my MK I and had it for 5 years, the MKIII feels like the true successor to the MKI and I therefore hope to have that for a similar time period.

Ive also felt comfortable dabbling in a few movie mode shots with the MKIII while out and about taking photos.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

WhoIreland said:


> Hey...
> 
> Long time lurker,first time poster.
> 
> ...



I went from FF cameras like this

Yashica MAT-124G ----- Olympus OM-1 ------ Minolta Maxxum AF -------- 5Dc -------- 5D3

Never cared for the 5D MK2 series.  

The 5D3's AF is fantastic.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2012)

tron said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I think the initial DPP was just bugged and was applying strong anti-moire tech at times when there should have been an option to turn it off.

Isn't that video discussing video moire? THat's a different thing. The 5D2 and the others did line skipping which introduces radical moire and aliasing. The 5D3 doesn't line skip and it also seems to filter things on top so the video doesn't have more than a bare hint of the nasty moire and such. But that is nothing to do with stills.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2012)

In sum, the 5D3 really does have a lot of nice things upgraded that it more natural and quicker to use, it's much more responsive, it has cleaner shadows at high ISO that can occasionally make a very big difference, as a stills cams it's generally really great other than the one real shame in the very old school low ISO dynamic range performance, the one letdown in an otherwise realllllly good camera.



(but again, if you do tripod-based landscape work and nothing else, then it makes little sense to spend so much for so little return for that case)


----------



## EOBeav (Sep 25, 2012)

Not it. I don't see the 5DIII as a worthwhile upgrade, not for the kind of work that I do, anyway.


----------



## bp (Sep 25, 2012)

I did as well. Held on to the 5D2, but have become so fond of the 5D3's AF that I can barely stand to use the 5D2 anymore. Usually carry it as a second body and every time I pick it up there's a voice in my head that says "GAHHH!!!! where are all my AF points?!?!"


----------



## sdsr (Sep 25, 2012)

When I moved to a 5DII from a Pentax K-5 I found the focusing on the Canon far superior (whether that's because of the body or the lenses or both together I can't really say), so I'm amused to read here all the complaints about focusing on the 5DII. 

But I may be a bit odd: I only use center point focusing (an ancient habit having died hard) and have not yet been interested in photographing things/people/animals moving fast. Would I find center point focusing more accurate on the 5DIII? (Aside from that, the only feature of the 5DIII that interests me is better low light performance - and again, coming from a non-FF camera the low light performance of the 5DII looks pretty impressive to me.)


----------



## Ricku (Sep 25, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I did. The m3 is so much better in every way possible. Best choice


In every way possible? Why are you lying like this?

Yes, the Mark 3 is faster, has very nice AF, and very nice high ISO performance, but when it comes to low ISO shooting (bellow ISO 800), there is zero difference in IQ and DR.

On low ISO settings, the 5D3 = 5D2.

And the banding is still there.


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images


----------



## canon816 (Sep 26, 2012)

Tron.

Interesting.

Both of my 5DIII bodies produce cleaner, crisper, sharper images then my 5DII. I wonder if your 5DIII copy had a problem or my 5DII body had a problem.

Both 5DIII bodies are also much better IQ then my 1DIV and my 7D.


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Tron.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> ...


 This is good news actually! 

However: Many people say general things without mentioning the details. You, for example:

1. Are you comparing raw files? You didn't mention Raw of Jpg.
2. What software are you using?


----------



## canon816 (Sep 26, 2012)

Tron,

I shoot Raw. Convert to DNG and then process with Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 4.

My comments refer to then entire ISO Range.

Lenses I have noticed my statements to hold true: 24-105mm f4, 17-40mm f4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4

Mounted on a Gitzo Systematic Carbon Tribod with WH200 Wimberley Head.

Anything else you curious about?


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Tron,
> 
> I shoot Raw. Convert to DNG and then process with Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 4.
> 
> ...



Thanks for answering 

Keep in mind that Lightroom 4 was reported for not producing ultra sharp 5D3 images! 
I didn't make it up I read it in THIS forum (Sometime in April or May I think). You are doing something very interesting though. You convert to DNG first. That's another step and maybe a good one as it seems. Thanks again...

P.S I do not believe that there are problems with bodies. At least not often. They are not lenses. I have a fine 5DII and I try to gather as much info as possible about 5DMKIII. I am thinking of bying it and this thread is definitely a suitable one for this purpose.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 26, 2012)

tron said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > Tron,
> ...



You bet. 

I tend to agree with you about body issues being rare, however I have personally known of 4 bodies from both Nikon and Canon that had a shutter issue. Apparently a shutter can become loose and will cause a slight amount of vibration which can result in sharpness issues. All of these bodies were repaired by the manufacturer at no charge. A system such as FoCal can show these issues if you compare IQ from two bodies that are the same model and use the same lens.

Mainly I convert to DNG so that I will always have access to my RAW files in the future. Support for old bodies in current editing software is starting to wane, and by converting to DNG you will always be able to edit your old files with future editing programs.

Naturally there are some people who feel that the 5DIII is not worth the upgrade, and I completely respect that opinion. For me... It's worth 10 times the cost. The 5DIII is the best camera I have ever had the pleasure of shooting with. (I have not shot a 1DX)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2012)

tron said:


> DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images



I know Canon even said DPP had a bug, whether that explained it all, I don't know.

Are you sure about ACR. I don't recall that.


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 26, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images
> ...


I seem to remember seeing reports of issues with the ACR beta. It certainly wouldn't be the first issues with new Canon (and probably other) cameras on the first one or two updates after support was initiated, as there were issues with the last version of LR2 that was introduced immediately following release of the 7D. LR3 largely corrected the issues.


----------

