Canon 5D mark ii or mark iii for video?

I am in dire need upgrading from a Nikon D90 for a project I need to start soon. I want to stick with DSLRs because I love the shallow depth of field and small size of the cameras. I've pretty much narrowed my selection down to either the 5d mark ii or mark iii.

The reason I am skeptical about going for the mark iii is because I am not sure if it is worth the extra $1,500 if I am primarily using it for video. From what I understand, the video quality is improved over the mark ii, but is it really worth the extra $1,500? I mean if the mark ii was good enough to shoot an episode of House, I'm sure its quality is good enough for my short film projects.

The new audio features of the mark iii are nice (monitoring audio on the LCD and adjusting it while recording), but I always record my sound externally anyway.

Right now I am a bit conflicted on my choice and was hoping that I could get some feedback.
 
There aren't very many people that will be able to answer this in a really comprehensive way yet, because the 5DmkIII hasn't hit shelves yet for most to get hands on.

The biggest/best new feature in my opinion is the ability to shoot at higher ISO with less grain. If you're shooting on a tripod on lit sets, the extra cash spent on quality glass will probably go father.
 
I do a lot of gorilla style shooting in low light, so maybe the mark iii is for me. I suppose I can just wait a couple of weeks till people get a hold of their pre-orders and start doing reviews and real-world comparisons.
 
The biggies (on mk3 vs mk2) are
Less rolling shutter
Virtual elimination of moire
Less tendency for aliasing
Higher bitrate and improved codec that will help in post.

If you have the money these features are worth it for sure. If you don't used mk2 are already down in the $1800 range and likely to drop further once mk3 actually streets. When I sell mine (mk2) in 6 to 9 months I'm really only expecting to be able to get $1500 or so for it.
 
Back
Top