esoeij
Senior Member
I find your post full of contradictions and flawed logic.
Point 1 - After taking into account the vastly superior AF, improved FPS and metering system (since you said mk3 'went 7D'), you conveniently find nothing else to justify the Mk3 over the Mk2. Hmmm...
Point 2 - You said that Mk2 optical quality is as good as it gets. So that's it for sensor technology then. Canon can stop R&D on sensors, forget about higher ISO performance vis-a-vis its competition with Nikon, etc.
Point 3 - 'Nothing to justify purchase of Mk3 unless willing buyer is first timer'...going by your logic, even first timer should just buy Mk2.
Point 4 - It's already been said ad nauseam that skill is important, not just the tools. Yes, true, but what's wrong with getting a better tool?
Point 5 - 8 in 10 running around don't really know how to take photographs? Really, why 8? Why not 9 in 10? Big, fat, unverifiable claim.
Point 6 - Non-pros should just stick with entry-level cameras. Oh wait, professionals should never buy top-of-the-line cameras either, since they can take great pictures with point-and-shoot cameras.
Point 7 - 'Happy point and shoot with the Mk3'. Besides a whiff of sour grapes that I sense, if that's all the possibilities you can see with this camera, even the Mk2 would be way over your head.
Point 1 - After taking into account the vastly superior AF, improved FPS and metering system (since you said mk3 'went 7D'), you conveniently find nothing else to justify the Mk3 over the Mk2. Hmmm...
Point 2 - You said that Mk2 optical quality is as good as it gets. So that's it for sensor technology then. Canon can stop R&D on sensors, forget about higher ISO performance vis-a-vis its competition with Nikon, etc.
Point 3 - 'Nothing to justify purchase of Mk3 unless willing buyer is first timer'...going by your logic, even first timer should just buy Mk2.
Point 4 - It's already been said ad nauseam that skill is important, not just the tools. Yes, true, but what's wrong with getting a better tool?
Point 5 - 8 in 10 running around don't really know how to take photographs? Really, why 8? Why not 9 in 10? Big, fat, unverifiable claim.
Point 6 - Non-pros should just stick with entry-level cameras. Oh wait, professionals should never buy top-of-the-line cameras either, since they can take great pictures with point-and-shoot cameras.
Point 7 - 'Happy point and shoot with the Mk3'. Besides a whiff of sour grapes that I sense, if that's all the possibilities you can see with this camera, even the Mk2 would be way over your head.
Its interesting to see that they went 7D with the Mk3, to some extent.
Other then that the Mk2 is already as good as it gets in terms of optical quality. I cannot find any improvement that would justify the purchase of the Mk3 unless, of course, the willing buyer is a first timer.
The other thing I notice is that despite the ever evolving equipment I have not seen much development to the better in the other hardware. I mean the one made of flesh and blood, judged by the mediocre works
displayed here in this very forum.
Guys, the cam does reflect only your skills, nothing else, even in full automatic mode. And if your skills are shite the photographs are shite even with an Mk3. And I estimate that 8 out of 10 running around
in Singapore on Sundays with expensive hardware around their necks dun really know how to take acceptable photographs. And taking boring skyline night shots is not worth it either.
The professional photographers (meaning they make a living out of taking photographs) I worked together with in the past 24 months were all using as their primary work horse either 40D or 50D. Jesus Christ, how the heck is that
possible?! Well, I figure it's skills that separates them from most of us - they know how to use the tool to the max.
Anyway, happy point and shoot with your new Mk3....
