Just as a song that can't be whistled, hummed, or sung simply isn't going to get remembered--most of the "work" of this generation will simply vanish from history--not that they will care--but the pendulum swings both way--and in a few years we will see trite being replaced by meaningful--and point and shoots aren't going to make the cut--Going back to Isaac Newton, you can't get more out of something than you put into it--you can demonstrate natural laws, but you can't break them
Stan

Your points are well taken. I am more than satisfied with the results of my 70D. I suspect that if I was into landscape photography, it would be good to have a FF camera, but for the nature stuff that I am interested in, I am doing fine. I think it's more needing more. For example, when I got into guns, I was always looking for the next gun to buy. I got my first DSLR at the end of June and upgraded to the 70D when it came out. Of course that was more for the upgrade in features than just to buy the next thing. I guess I love photography so much that one falls into the trap of thinking they will love it more if they have more "stuff."
:mrgreen:

I notice that a lot of the pros use the Canon Mark 5 DIII. I currently utilize the Canon 70D and I wonder what spending 3 times the amount of the 70D buys the user? On the negative side, the Mark 5 does not have AF in video mode and does not have a built in flash so whether or not one has use for either, that is two things less that 3 times the price buys you. Granted pros would tend to use other than built-in flash and probably have dedicated video equipment.

I am basically a nature photographer and I get outstanding results with my 70D and my two L lenses. If I were, for example, to take a shot of a bird sitting on a wall with both cameras, I would think that there would not be a discernible difference in the shots with the Mark 5 having just a couple more megapixels than the 70D. True, it takes two memory cards, but that is not an issue for me. One 32MB card does fine for me with a spare or two carried in case I go nuts. True the Mark 5 has a higher ISO capability, but who needs such high ISO? I would assume that at the extreme ISO settings, noise would be a major factor.

Now I do see thing that might be of interest, and that is more focusing points of the more expensive model, but then again, I typically use center point focusing so I'm not sure what that buys me for my type of photography. Perhaps it is easier to lock on focus for BIF shots which I sometimes find to be a challenge. It has a larger LCD screen and reviews a 2% more of the view than the 70D, but those are minor points.

If I get into landscape photography, I would certainly want a full-frame camera, but I'm not sure there is any need for that with nature photography.

Is there any practical reason that someone in my situation would consider an upgrade to a Mark 5? Thanks.

RPbySC,

I have both the Canon 5D MkII and the Canon 7D along with a bunch of lenses.

That said, I also have the Sony NEX-7 (along with a bunch of lenses including the Zeiss 24mm f1.8)

I also own the Sony RX 1, RX-100II & the RX-100. I usually take the Sonys out to play with & use the Canons for the more serious stuff.

I shot this with the RX 1 last Saturday night right after sunset. I took 5 shots using RAW capture and then combined them in Photomatix Pro converting it into a High Resolution jpeg. Then I added some more jpegs that I shot using the in-camera filter effects (monochrome + red, yellow, blue & green). I balanced, adjusted for crop, light, contrast, saturation and added a light touch of sharpening in Photoshop Elements 10.

Photogdog