I have the Mk II. Is the AF much better on the Mark III? As a nature photographer, faster AF would be a big win. Advice from Mk III owners?
1116905
Much better than most cameras on its caliber. With 61 points of AF you have everything covered. It is also considerably faster than any other camera I've used.
1116906
I went from a Mark II to a Mark III because the AF is some much better. Canon has also made it better in so many other ways.
1116907
I too came from the MK II and can say, as others have pointed out, that the AF has been greatly improved in the MK III and there is a noticeable difference from MK II to MK III. The AF is responsive, snappy, and consistent. MK III's AF performs very well in low light, which is one area I found the MK II had trouble at times.
1116908
I can't make a comparison with the Mk II since I've never owned one but I've used a 7D for three years and the Mk III AF is noticeably faster plus is has the availability of more focus points.
1116909
The AF on the 5DIII is better then the the 5DII. The III has the same system as the 1DX.
1116910
Yes, the AF on the 5D3 is vastly improved over the 5D2. The mkiii has the same AF system as the 1DX! The 61pts provide a pretty coverage of the frame so you won't have to rely on the center point to focus and compose. The AF system in general performs very sell in low light situations. I don't use air servo too often but when I have, I found that it tracked my subjects well. You also get the customizable cases for aiservo so you can tune it to your preference in various different situations or dependent on your subject matters movement characteristics. I stepped up from my 7D which has a solid AF system which performed well. After using my 5D3, I prefer my mkiii as the AF system seems little more consistent, more accurate, and it works better in low light.
1116911
Mkii is a good camera, but if we talk about AF, of cause 5d mkiii is better, much better, too much better to believe. I don't talk about 61 focusing points, exellent af settings for different sports. And when i shoot stars, now with new af on mk3 i can focus on stars.
1116912
Yes. I've been shooting a Mk II since December '08. When I fired up my new Mk III a few months ago, the difference was quite evident. The Mk II was ok for tripod portrait work, but it offered a challenge, partly my fault, when shooting flying crows with AI-Servo.
1116913
I think you have your answer from others here, but I thought I would chime in and call out that not only is it better and faster it locks on faster than my 1D Mark IV in low light conditions. There are a lot of tweak able settings, but I haven't found the AI servo to be as fast or reliable as the 1D, of course, that is mostly because I want the extra ~4fps and haven't fiddled enough with the AF settings. Even better than the AF system though is how gorgeous the photos that come out of the Mark III are. Incredible, even at silly ISO settings (12800+). You will love it if you get one.
591607
I had a 20mm MkI on a GX1 side by side. I also have the EM10 with 17mm. I can't comment on the image quality. I sold my old Panny stuff and jumped on Oly camp without doing much. The 20mm is actually slower to focus compare to the 17mm on both cameras.
440166
Thanks !, Old amazonian, and Nikon fan...appreciate the input. Haven't made the choice yet, and will sweat out amazon on the LX3.And then I found out that my sister is going to AC this weekend and can wrangle a "Nikon SLR" out of Tropicana- they're desperate for repeat business- so I'll play with that for a while. Must be a D40.Happy New Year!
1874389
Hi Yadid: I can't speak about other dSLRs, but I have to say that I really enjoy the tilting screen on the A300/A350. I didn't expect to use it very often, but I have found myself using it as a waist level viewfinder quite often. The fact that Sony's design, which uses a secondary sensor, allows you to focus while in the live-view mode puts it head and shoulders above the competition in my opinion. Most of the competing live-view technologies have to autofocus after the mirror flips up, so the Sony system is quicker to use. I never owned the A2, but I owned the Dimage 5 and 7 predecessors, which used many of the same components, including the lens. Either the A300 or A350 will offer quicker performance and better low-light capabilities. Image quality will depend on lens choice. The Minolta GT lens on the A2 was an excellent performer, so you will need to carefully evaluate which lenses you choose. Some people slam Sony for not offering as much in the way of lenses, but what they do offer is generally very good. In addition, you can choose from almost all the Minolta AF lenses. Some of these are mediocre, but Minolta also offered some truly excellent optics, as you know from your A2. Try http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta or http://www.dyxum.com for some in depth information on A-mount lenses available from Sony and Minolta. As far as a higher-end camera, you didn't say what you were hoping to do with your images. The A700 is a suburb instrument, and it offers many features not available on the A300 or A350. It costs quite a bit more however. Unless you need some of the things the A700 offers, (faster continuous shooting, higher-resolution LCD, PC Sync port, tethered-shooting, etc.) you might be better off buying the A300 or A350 and spending more on high quality lenses. Good luck, I hope this is helpful. --Tom Bonner
697449
i have this camera and the 1ds mark ii 16.7 mp for me there both take sharp pictures,of course with the L lens,the iin is faster,the 1ds mk ii,you get higher resolution,that's it.that's why i have 2 cameras,one slow and one fast,one 1.3x versus 1.0x crop factor
1697749
@Jeffrey... I will agree with you that the Nikon D3100 feels better than the T3 in the hand. Actually the most solid-feeling entry-level DSLR out there right now is the Pentax K-r but that's beside the point. It does have more intuitively laid-out controls. However I have shot with both the D3100 and the T3 and had a much more enjoyable shooting experience with the T3 than the D3100. The T3 seems faster in just about every aspect than the D3100, it has a better viewfinder, and despite its screen being low-res, I actually didn't think it was that bad and it's better than the D3100's. And it has impressive photo quality (even with the kit lens). I think Canon was smart to only have the sensor @ 12mp. So I think overall the T3 is the better DSLR. However, I think Canon should be worried about the Nikon D5100 as a competitor to their T3i.
1771454
I owned a K3 for a month, then bought a K5IIs. IMO, the K5IIs takes sharper photos more often. The K3 is a very unforgiving camera. You will discard the majority of your shots, where the reverse is true for the 5IIs. K3 software is much better, esp focus peaking, but that does not overcome its very steep learning curve and requirement for meticulous technique on every shot. IMO, the sweet spot is 16 megapixel on aps-c.
1203849
I also have a D60 and plan to use the Nikkor 10-24 in my underwater shooting - what do y'all think?The Tokina 10-17 is out because of no AF compatability with the D60. divergal
212784
Wanted to let you all know that I decided on the D7000 and picked one up today. Couldn't be happier. Continuous autofocus during video shooting is useless on it, but I'm learning to manually focus, which is actually more rewarding for me; when shooting at f/1.8 you can get a very cinematic look focusing manually, even when you're chasing around your twin toddlers!
1556862
I am a 5D MKIII user and I have picked Canon 2 option. it works fine for me.
1298992
I am very happy with the k3. It works well with the light I get inside. It was a good upgrade from the 5d mark II and 7d I had. I hope to buy another one soon. I thought about the k50 or k5IIs but there's no need to go back to a lesser brand when the new one is only $1000 right now. Unless you like the color of the k50. The k3 has everything that they both have plus more.
1952747
It totally depends on the most used features of the 5D Mark III that you used. The AF is much more basic on the 6D. The build isn't as solid feeling, the sensor is a hairs smaller, and the buffer is smaller. Other than that, the sensitivity of the sensor and the processor speed great. Are you doing a lot of HDR raw? 6D doesn't do HDR Raw. Are you monitoring any filming of your kid wi headphones? The 6D doesn't have an additional monitoring jack. I got a 6D and haven't looked back and would have not qualms about shooing a client with it. I hope this helps. If needed, go to a local camera store and get your hands on one for the feel. Good Luck. It totally depends on the most used features of the 5D Mark III that you used. The AF is much more basic on the 6D. The build isn't as solid feeling, the sensor is a hairs smaller, and the buffer is smaller. Other than that, the sensitivity of the sensor and the processor speed great. Are you doing a lot of HDR raw? 6D doesn't do HDR Raw. Are you monitoring any filming of your kid wi headphones? The 6D doesn't have an additional monitoring jack. I got a 6D and haven't looked back and would have not qualms about shooing a client with it. I hope this helps. If needed, go to a local camera... » Read More It totally depends on the most used features of the 5D Mark III that you used. The AF is much more basic on the 6D. The build isn't as solid feeling, the sensor is a hairs smaller, and the buffer is smaller. Other than that, the sensitivity of the sensor and the processor speed great. Are you doing a lot of HDR raw? 6D doesn't do HDR Raw. Are you monitoring any filming of your kid wi headphones? The 6D doesn't have an additional monitoring jack. I got a 6D and haven't looked back and would have not qualms about shooing a client with it. I hope this helps. If needed, go to a local camera store and get your hands on one for the feel. Good Luck. « Show Less
1240270
I use a pair of the Mark IV bodies at work, and just borrowed a 7D from Canon Professional Services for a test. The 7D image quality is very good compared to my old Mark II bodies and my 40D bodies. I just shot a candle-lit church service at ISO 3200, and the images are very usable. The AF is good, and camera feels solid and responsive. Overall, compared to my old Mark II bodies, the 7D is an improvement in almost every area. However, the 1D Mark IV is just a whole different level in pretty much every area. Image quality at 3200 and 6400 is superb. Excellent detail, very low noise, and it's easily controlled in raw processing. AF is faster and there are more custom options (and I can make it work like my Mark II bodies, with the AF-On button for Spot AF, and the * button for Area AF.) That said, I don't like to work with two different cameras at the same time. The user interface is slightly different between the 7D and the 1D Mark IV, and it's just enough that for me I'd have a hard time switching from one to the other i the middle of an assignment.
17384
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs-Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III
1130015
Besides being unbelievably sharp, I think this will be more flexible for you than the f4 version. If you mate it with the new 1.4 MKIII extender you get yourself a nice 420MM f4 (on a full frame body). You won't be able to extend the range of the f4 version like that.
157904
I've used a 5D mii and I own the 6D. Honestly, if you have the money, I would go for the miii simply because it has a bit more bells and whistles and good growing room. You'll hold onto the iii for a long time. As for the learning curve, they're both mostly the same. If you've owned a DSLR before, you'll have a good idea. If you haven't but you mostly know what you're doing and what all of the things mean, just read the manual a little and you'll get the hang of it in a day or two. And for low light, the 6D is slightly better but they're pretty close. I chose the 6D because, I needed to spend less, it's amazing with lowlight (I shoot a TON of lowlight), it's small and I have small hands, and it's basically just a 5D iii pared down. However, if I had the money, I would get the 5D iii.
1634146
Pentax K-5II autofocus is excellent. I locked myself in a dark closet to see how good it was and I was able to focus and shoot pretty fast. I moved from a Pentax K20D and had the same issue with the camera... loved the pics but the autofocus sucked. I know people who have moved from the Nikon 60D and Cannon 5D to the Pentax K-5ii impressed by the AF speed. Hope this helps. Good luck!