# 5d mark II vs mark iii in low light



## Pukka312 (Dec 8, 2012)

I am debating between whether I should save for the mark iii, or just go for the mark II since it's significantly less money. I'm looking to hear from those who've upgraded and can tell me whether the low light capabilities are significantly better.

A majority of my work covers low light events and I will certainly wait to afford the mark iii if the low light capabilities are dramatically improved. I obviously expect the mark iii to come out ahead in performance, but need to know if it's worth the extra $1500 or so in terms of addressing low light.

I currently shoot with a 60D so I'd expect both to blow my ISO capabilities out of the water.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 8, 2012)

I have been using the Mark II for awhile now, and I am primarily a wedding photographer.  I recently upgraded to the Mark III for the ISO factor. I don't like to use flash if I don't have to. The Mark III is on sale right now. The Mark III just in focusing alone is wonderful. 64 focal points vs. 9 focal points. I had a glitch in my new mark III, but they are sending me a out a new one. So, if you can save and swing the mark III I would do so.


----------



## gw2424 (Dec 8, 2012)

I would look at the 6d. If low light is your major concern than the 6d would be great. 

To compare specs: Canon 6D vs 5D Mark II - Our Analysis

Good Luck


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 8, 2012)

Honestly, the ISO difference isn't THAT much improved over the Mark II.

The biggest change would probably be the autofocus.


----------



## camz (Dec 8, 2012)

ISO wise you have 25k on the Mark II vs ~100K on the Mark III so that's two stops in theory. Offcourse any image above 12.5k is pretty much useless for both systems. However equivalent comparison of ISO settings between the two favor on the Mark III - if compared that way the difference if very slight.  

I normally shoot with the Mark II but I did try a buddy's Mark III for one of our weddings and I must say the AF is like buttah! But was it worth if for me as a weddding/portrait guy to switch?  It didn't justify it for me. I probably will not switch unless my baby breaks down.  

If you need low light I think the Mark II is decent enough combined with low light capable lenses.  If you need a fast focusing system that's a different story.  I would save the 1500 and place it towards glass expenses.


----------



## KmH (Dec 8, 2012)

What counts is the *usable* ISO range, not the adjustment range.

The Mk III is a bit better for low-light then the Mk II - DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

A Nikon D800 is better for low light than a Mk III.


----------

