05-29-2012, 11:25 PM
I did upgrade.
I got a pretty good price for my II so the cost was significant but not massive; and of course I get a new guarantee and a new shutter mechanism and all of that along with the improvements that the III brings.
I'm very happy: there is not much difference at low ISO (though I think the resolution is a tiny bit more than you would expect for so few extra pixels).
At higher ISOs it's nice; I think usably more than a half stop, because the pattern noise is less and it generally both looks better and takes to noise reduction better. I suspect the massive NR of the JPEGS is only in part the better processor: it's also that the files take to noise reduction at high ISO better than the II.
The focus is a dream compared to the II, especially (of course) the AI focus -- I'm now taking pics for my cycling club that I couldn't have got with the II.
In some ways the wider distribution of focus points (and the orientation coupling of them) is even more important. I can put an accurate focus point where I want an eye to be in a portrait oriented portrait, and thus get much more accurate focus at wide apertures than with focus-and-recompose.
I've been caught in the rain: no problem. I really love the way you can use the DOF button to temporarily override focus mode (from single shot to AI or vice versa). The using the fn button to turn on the level makes shooting panoramas on the fly much easier. Love the viewfinder. Love the extra card slot, and the general feel of it.
Would I go for a D800 sensor in the same body if I could? Not sure. I'd like the low ISO DR. But I don't' think the extra pixels matter to me (except perhaps if I were shooting wildlife and I wanted to crop for extra reach). And when editing multiple layers in photoshop the large files would be a nuisance (also for LR performance).
I got a pretty good price for my II so the cost was significant but not massive; and of course I get a new guarantee and a new shutter mechanism and all of that along with the improvements that the III brings.
I'm very happy: there is not much difference at low ISO (though I think the resolution is a tiny bit more than you would expect for so few extra pixels).
At higher ISOs it's nice; I think usably more than a half stop, because the pattern noise is less and it generally both looks better and takes to noise reduction better. I suspect the massive NR of the JPEGS is only in part the better processor: it's also that the files take to noise reduction at high ISO better than the II.
The focus is a dream compared to the II, especially (of course) the AI focus -- I'm now taking pics for my cycling club that I couldn't have got with the II.
In some ways the wider distribution of focus points (and the orientation coupling of them) is even more important. I can put an accurate focus point where I want an eye to be in a portrait oriented portrait, and thus get much more accurate focus at wide apertures than with focus-and-recompose.
I've been caught in the rain: no problem. I really love the way you can use the DOF button to temporarily override focus mode (from single shot to AI or vice versa). The using the fn button to turn on the level makes shooting panoramas on the fly much easier. Love the viewfinder. Love the extra card slot, and the general feel of it.
Would I go for a D800 sensor in the same body if I could? Not sure. I'd like the low ISO DR. But I don't' think the extra pixels matter to me (except perhaps if I were shooting wildlife and I wanted to crop for extra reach). And when editing multiple layers in photoshop the large files would be a nuisance (also for LR performance).