# Is the 5D Mark iii a considerable enough upgrade from the 5D Mark ii?



## Lyric (Jan 15, 2013)

I am new here and have my first question 

Is the 5D Mark iii a considerable enough upgrade from the 5D Mark ii? 

Considering purchasing a 5D Mark iii and currently I own the 5D Mark ii. So basically I have the money and plenty of great lenses so I would like to upgrade to the 5D Mark iii but I wondering if it is worth the money and is it worth upgrading. I have my opinoins but I would like to hear others on this topic. Going from a 5D Mark ii to a 5D Mark iii will I really be gaining that much? And lastly is it worth it?

Thank you everyone


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2013)

Depends entirely on what you shoot and what your needs are... If you shoot mainly landscapes from a tripod, I'd just keep the 5DII. If you shoot moving subjects, or would significantly benefit by a bit less high-ISO noise, the 5DIII is a significant upgrade. IMO, the 5DII produced excellent IQ, and the 5DIII offers only a marginal improvement on that. It was the other attributes of the 5DII that I found lacking - autofocus speed and accuracy, in particular, and fps to a lesser extent - and the 5DIII is a major upgrade in those areas.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 15, 2013)

I would say yes, the 5D3 is a considerable upgrade from the 5D2. In fact, the Canon 6D is a pretty decent upgrade from the 5D2... But it all comes down to your needs as a shooter.

Does the autofocus system of the 5D2 frustrate you? If you frequently shoot moving subjects, the 5D3 will increase your keeper rate by a HUGE amount. If you're looking for better autofocus than the 5D2 provides, the 5D3 is worth the money just for the AF system alone, hands down.

Does the high-ISO noise of the 5D2 bother you a lot? If so, then both the 5D3 and the 6D are both worth upgrading to. The 5D3 and 6D provide useable images at ISO 12800 (I'd recommend shooting in RAW though) while the 5D2's images start looking REALLY grainy past 3200.

In my opinion, those are two of the biggest issues with the 5D2. If you primarily shoot in the studio or on a tripod where autofocus and high-ISO noise aren't a concern, then you'll probably be most happy staying with the 5D2.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 15, 2013)

I agree with the above posts. what do you shoot? What are the problems you are encountering with your current camera? what upgrades are you looking for?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 15, 2013)

Other posters have already attested to the its improved AF for moving objects, frame rates, higher ISO noise, etc. But another major advantage tha I like is shooting portraits/stills and NOT using the center AF point. With the 5D II, the camera's in-focus rate was low when shooting with fast primes. It is MUCH better on the 5D III. 

Whether or not it is worth is based on how much you'd have to spend on the upgrade. The net cost for me was about 1300 (selling the 5D II and buying the 5D III). It was worth that to me.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 15, 2013)

Like everyone else has said already: it all depends. The MarkIII is a very nice camera and a good upgrade from the MarkII in my opinion. AF and slightly more solid feel are the main aspects that make me say that. The other great thing about is that it really is not that much different from the MarkII.

And that is also the reason why decided against upgrading. The AF in my Mark II is good enough for me and so is everything else. If my photography side business makes me enough money this year I may add it as a second body. Otherwise I don't see it happening and it's not necessary.

I happen to disagree with others who suggested the 6D as an alternative. That one to me would be a step backwards. 1/4000 and 1/180 sync would make that a no go for me. That and the form factor.


----------



## Lyric (Jan 15, 2013)

My line of photography goes from Landscape, Nature, Street Photography, Macro and some others. One thing that grabbed my attention about the 5D Mark iii is the autofocus and iso. I myself felt it was enough reason to take the jump since I have the money but was questioning it. I always wanted more than just one center AF point on the 5D Mark ii and 5D Mark iii makes up for the autofocus plenty and plus the iso performance.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 15, 2013)

Why not consider the 6D if you are a hobbyist? From an IQ/ISO perspective, it is on par or better than the 5diii offering lower high ISO noise. It can also focus in much darker situations with it's center point.

However the 5diii has several features that appeals to professionals. I am not a pro and if I had a choice as a hobbyist with it's ipad integration, I'd own a 6D instead of a 5diii and save $1500 to plonk on some nice lenses.

as everyone else says... it depends what you shoot.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 15, 2013)

Lyric said:


> I am new here and have my first question
> 
> Is the 5D Mark iii a considerable enough upgrade from the 5D Mark ii?
> 
> ...



Hello and welcome!

This is also my first post but I think I can contribute with a relevant answer because I have both these two cameras and a 7D.
As some others already said, it depends on what you shoot. From my experience, if you shoot mainly landscapes you could save your money for a couple of awesome lenses because you will see no real gain from the Mark III. Canon 5D Mark II is also a great camera for such a purpose.

Now, if you shoot anything in fast motion which requires a fast burst, a reliable focus and high ISO performance (indoor sports) , there is no doubt about that, go for the Mark III. 

If you shoot anything in fast motion which requires a fast burst, a reliable focus, there is no need for high ISO performance but you need the reach of a cropped sensor (like bird photography), a Canon 7D would do the job quite well.

For anything else (weddings, portraits,kids, etc), especially shot in low light conditions, the Canon 5D Mark III would be the best choice because of the great autofocus capabilities.

Frankly I don`t believe that the Mark III has an extra stop gain at high ISO compared to the Mark II; maybe half of stop. I do a lot of indoor sports photography (soccer and basketball) and I can tell you that using the right lens for the job is more important than buying a new camera.
*IF* they are in focus (please not the IF), my photos taken with the Mark II camera and the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 lens at ISO 3200 look better than the ones taken with the Mark III at ISO 6400 and f/2.8 with Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II IS.
Yes, the first lens is a prime while the second one is a zoom but that is an awesome quality zoom.

The focusing system on those two cameras cannot be compared; Mark II is primitive while Mark III is simply unbelievable.

I would suggest to rent the Mark III for a couple of days or a week and then you`ll see if it makes any difference for your kind of photography.

Cheers

Nelu


----------



## Lyric (Jan 15, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Why not consider the 6D if you are a hobbyist? From an IQ/ISO perspective, it is on par or better than the 5diii offering lower high ISO noise. It can also focus in much darker situations with it's center point.
> 
> However the 5diii has several features that appeals to professionals. I am not a pro and if I had a choice as a hobbyist with it's ipad integration, I'd own a 6D instead of a 5diii and save $1500 to plonk on some nice lenses.
> 
> as everyone else says... it depends what you shoot.



Well I wouldn't say I am just a hobbyist as I show and sometimes sale some of my photographs in galleries. I also have my own buisiness and shoot for myself but others as well. My main photography is Landscape, Street Photography and others. But I do shoot for local school sports teams and some local businesses as well. 

I do not like to think that I am making money off my work but I do tend to as well.

I have looked at the 6D but I am very frustrated toward the body. The body does not feel so great in my hands and it feels to small like a miniture baby camera. I like the size of my 5D Mark ii and probably the smallest body I like is the 7D. The 6D like I said is well sort of ugly and I cannot stand the layout on the back. I like a big camera because it fits my hands just right and I prefer it heavy and a little big like I am currently using. There is also some technical specs I did not like about the 6D but I cannot remember them at this time right now.

But I feel the 5D Mark iii will be a great move. The 6D seems cheap and I honestly think it's overpriced as well. Same thing with the D600, cheap and to small. Although the D600 does look and feel cheaper.


----------



## Lyric (Jan 15, 2013)

Nelu said:


> Lyric said:
> 
> 
> > I am new here and have my first question
> ...



Thanks and I might just give that a shot and rent one for a bit.


----------



## infared (Jan 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends entirely on what you shoot and what your needs are... If you shoot mainly landscapes from a tripod, I'd just keep the 5DII. If you shoot moving subjects, or would significantly benefit by a bit less high-ISO noise, the 5DIII is a significant upgrade. IMO, the 5DII produced excellent IQ, and the 5DIII offers only a marginal improvement on that. It was the other attributes of the 5DII that I found lacking - autofocus speed and accuracy, in particular, and fps to a lesser extent - and the 5DIII is a major upgrade in those areas.


I agree with everything that neuro has to say regarding the upgrade. I sold my 5DII and bought a 5DIII..so I have personal. experience with the upgrade and my main reason was that I do a lot of HDR imaging and the 5DII had ONLY 3-stop bracketing... It was so lacking in that dept. (we are talking $10 worth of software that some point-and-shoots best it on???), that I decided to buy the 5DIII which has 7-stop bracketing. The 5DII is still a great camera...and had I known about Magic Lantern firmware (which has extended bracketing), I may have kept it...but I think that the III is a really decent upgrade..when you consider all of the points mentioned by Neuro, the locking program wheel, accepting two memory cards, 2 silent-shutter settings, the fact that the camera is much more customizable and it just handles and feels lot a lot more camera in my hand and that gives me confidence, which is something, for me that makes it really a worthwhile step forward especially now that it can be had at or below~$2900!!! (I paid full price 6 months back but was able to command $2000 for my 5DII back then so it evens out).


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 15, 2013)

Lyric said:


> I am new here and have my first question
> 
> Is the 5D Mark iii a considerable enough upgrade from the 5D Mark ii?
> 
> ...



I skipped the MK2 series camera entirely. 5Dc -------> 5D3.

I'd recommend skipping a generation of cameras on the same level unless you absolutely need something it offers. IE. 61-point AF is EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, I wouldn't consider a 6D. Its too similar to the 5D2.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 15, 2013)

hell ya


----------



## Zen (Jan 15, 2013)

I agree with all the above except that I think the IQ is as much as 20-25% better in the 5D3 - due I presume to the improved processor. Canon calls the processor in the 5D3 the Digic 5, while it is the Digic 4 in the Mk2. I went from the 2 to the 3 when the camera was released for sale and noticed the improved images almost immediately. Maybe that says more about my skill level - don't know. But there is a noticeable difference. I'm happy with the upgrade for sure. ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 16, 2013)

As many already mentioned...my vote is YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


----------



## celltech (Jan 16, 2013)

> Well I wouldn't say I am just a hobbyist as I show and sometimes sale some of my photographs in galleries. I also have my own buisiness and shoot for myself but others as well. My main photography is Landscape, Street Photography and others. But I do shoot for local school sports teams and some local businesses as well.



If you are shooting sports then get the 5D3. I just got one for volleyball and shot my first game last weekend. I was pulling the trigger in awe of how much better it was than my 5D2. It was hard to make it not hold focus. The 5D2 just frustrated me to no end as it hunted around. Although in its defense it worked pretty good for soccer. And as others have attested to I took several ISO 12800 shots that look amazing. The high ISO IQ on the 5D3 can let you use cheap and light lenses effectively.

And I also can't say enough for the silent shooting mode. I can get a snap of the dogs and they don't wake up anymore ;-)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 16, 2013)

celltech said:


> > Well I wouldn't say I am just a hobbyist as I show and sometimes sale some of my photographs in galleries. I also have my own buisiness and shoot for myself but others as well. My main photography is Landscape, Street Photography and others. But I do shoot for local school sports teams and some local businesses as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The silent shutter is EXACTLY why I have a 5D Mark III in my bag. I have to shoot golf and tennis for the university, fall and spring, and if you have to be close, oh how nice it is to have.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 16, 2013)

If you didn't own the MK II this is an easy call...5D3 is a damn good buy and you get the latest camera with a vastly improved AF and few other smaller perks.

But, if you already own a MK II, considering you will be paying upward of $2500 to buy the 5D3, this is a much harder call...one that will depend on your wallet ultimately. I guess you could potentially recoup a portion of the money via resale of MK II...but still you are looking at ~$1500 on top, primarily for the AF upgrade.

Release of 5D3 has not made 5D2 any less of a camera. I see photographers churning out-jaw dropping pics from their 5D2 still. So check your wallet and if it won't bite, go for the 5D3!


----------



## skitron (Jan 16, 2013)

If you have the $ and need/want way better AF, much better ISO and noise characteristic, mostly moire-less video, then 5D3 is a big upgrade IMO. I also like the color rendition better. I had a 5D2 and liked it but the AF and ISO/noise made me look at a 5D3. Glad I made the change.


----------

