Canon Mk5 m3, is it worth moving from the MK5 m2: I absolutely love my mk5 m2, it takes great photos but there are only a couple of options that I would really use on the M3. One is...

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I absolutely love my mk5 m2, it takes great photos but there are only a couple of options that I would really use on the M3. One is the higher iso, since I do alot of low light.
I really only care about the final image it produces. Does anyone have actual experience with this model? And what do you think after working with it "hands on"?

oceanflyer Loc: Windword Side of CA

I was invited to a local camera shop where a Canon rep showed off the MkIII. He went through the changes and we all got to play with it. I brought my own card and loaded the dozen or so photos I took into LR4 when I got home. I couldn't see anything better than my II.

It's a great camera and if I didn't own a Mk II it would be very tempting but I don't think, for the money, it's that much better. That's just me. Others may feel differently.

Turbo Loc: Raleigh, NC

It hasn't been out long enough to know what users think.

On paper, the picture quality ( 22 meg ) compared to the Mark II ( 21 meg) won't be much different.

The Mark III has a much better focusing system and newer software ( DIGIC 5 ) that provides less noise under high ISO ( up to 102,000 )

It also shoots 6 pics per second instead of 3.9

If you use the camera for wildlife, the Mark III is definitely going to be an improvement, but if you use it mostly in a studio, not so much

dundeelad Loc: Originally UK. Current West Dundee, Illinois

Jer wrote:

I absolutely love my mk5 m2, it takes great photos but there are only a couple of options that I would really use on the M3. One is the higher iso, since I do alot of low light.
I really only care about the final image it produces. Does anyone have actual experience with this model? And what do you think after working with it "hands on"?

Here is a link to a blog I posted some time back from Martin Bailey, a Tokyo based Brit photographer. He goes through the Mark 3 in some detail. You might like to read/listen.

http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/2012/03/27/podcast-328-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-digital-slr-review/

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Great information.
I really like the low light but most of that other stuff I really don't care about. Probably as a group they are a powerful package.
The main issue for me has always been image quality. If you held a MK2 printed image next to a MK3 image, could the MK3 be a better image?
I know it hasn't been out long enough for reviews, that's why I'm asked you guys. The other reason is that I trust real people using the product more than most reviews.

dundeelad Loc: Originally UK. Current West Dundee, Illinois

Jer wrote:

Great information.
I really like the low light but most of that other stuff I really don't care about. Probably as a group they are a powerful package.
The main issue for me has always been image quality. If you held a MK2 printed image next to a MK3 image, could the MK3 be a better image?
I know it hasn't been out long enough for reviews, that's why I'm asked you guys. The other reason is that I trust real people using the product more than most reviews.

Nobody uses his camera more than Martin. He just got back with a group from the Antarctic.

larrycumba

Got mine today. I hope I like it better than my mark II. The salesman said I will.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Ken Rockwell has his - has used it and reviewed it - kenrockwell.com

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Jer wrote:

I absolutely love my mk5 m2, it takes great photos but there are only a couple of options that I would really use on the M3. One is the higher iso, since I do alot of low light.
I really only care about the final image it produces. Does anyone have actual experience with this model? And what do you think after working with it "hands on"?

Jer,

Right off the bat, I haven't seen or handled the Mk III. I've had my MK II for about 6-7 months now (figures I would buy it just before the MK III comes out and the MK II price drops). Having said that, I compared the specs on the MK III to my MK II and I can't really justify the price increase. I use EF-L lenses on my MK II and I'm very satisfied with the images (EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM, 8-15mm f4.0L & 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 IS USM). For the money, I'd probably buy new glass before springing for the body upgrade. Just my 2 cents worth.

PD

Canon MK II 24-70mm f5.6, 1/80 ISO @ 400

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Jer wrote:

I absolutely love my mk5 m2, it takes great photos but there are only a couple of options that I would really use on the M3. One is the higher iso, since I do alot of low light.
I really only care about the final image it produces. Does anyone have actual experience with this model? And what do you think after working with it "hands on"?

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "It's a great camera and if I didn't own a Mk II it would be very tempting but I don't think, for the money, it's that much better."

oceanflyer wrote:

I was invited to a local camera shop where a Canon rep showed off the MkIII. He went through the changes and we all got to play with it. I brought my own card and loaded the dozen or so photos I took into LR4 when I got home. I couldn't see anything better than my II.

It's a great camera and if I didn't own a Mk II it would be very tempting but I don't think, for the money, it's that much better. That's just me. Others may feel differently.

Old Rotary Motor, Palm Springs Air Museum, 2012: 5DII with EF 24-105mm f/4 lens

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

anotherview wrote:

Ditto: "It's a great camera and if I didn't ... (show quote)

Incredibly sharp!!!

I know the "pixel peepers" can crop till they drop and find fault with chromatic aberation, pin cushioning, edge-edge softening and all that, but my eyes just aren't that good. I typically print at 13"x19" & have no complaints.

PD

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Photogdog wrote:

quote=anotherview Ditto: "It's a great came... (show quote)

I agree about the "pixel peepers".
Do you own a M3? Is there a significant difference between the m2 and m3 in image quality?

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

oceanflyer wrote:

I was invited to a local camera shop where a Canon rep showed off the MkIII. He went through the changes and we all got to play with it. I brought my own card and loaded the dozen or so photos I took into LR4 when I got home. I couldn't see anything better than my II.

It's a great camera and if I didn't own a Mk II it would be very tempting but I don't think, for the money, it's that much better. That's just me. Others may feel differently.

I would love to have the extra two stops but is it worth the price. I already own a lot of glass that is 2.8 or better. I've only had one photojournalism event that exceeded the limits of my equipment, so I had to go to flash.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

larrycumba wrote:

Got mine today. I hope I like it better than my mark II. The salesman said I will.

Let me know what you think. thx.