Though, the Mark 2 provides a slight refresh to the overall design. User Interface & Menusīoth cameras feature a nearly identical user interface and menus. It now offers a 1,200 shot battery life compared to the 950 shot lifespan of the Mark 3, a 20% increase. Battery Lifeīattery life on the Mark 2 is much improved. Otherwise, the Mark 2 delivers the better all-rounded system. However, if you don’t, and you’re solely shooting photography, the better point distribution of the Mark 3 may be worthwhile. So if you plan on shooting video at all, the Mark 2 is the better choice. Nonetheless, the lack of this technology renders video autofocusing virtually useless in the Mark 3. And this addition alone creates the superior system, granted the user must shoot with the camera in Live View to take advantage of it. However, the Mark 2 features Canon’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF, which allows the camera to deliver better overall subject tracking performance in both stills and videos. The AF points in the Mark 3 are also better spread around the imaging area, reducing much of the burden of focus recomposing during still shooting. The Mark 3 offers a system that delivers better overall point coverage, with its 61-point system compared to only 45 points in the Mark 2. Outside of this, both cameras still have the same industry-standard recording time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds.Īutofocusing is an interesting area for both cameras and is an area each has defined strengths. This addition allows users to capture slow-motion video, something not possible with the Mark 3.
CANON 5D MARK III VS 6D MARK II FORUM 1080P
It can now shoot 1080p Full HD video up to 60 fps, whereas the Mark 3 limits at 30 fps.
CANON 5D MARK III VS 6D MARK II FORUM ISO
In all, these improvements allow the camera to deliver higher resolution images with better low-light high ISO performance. Not only that, but it also offers a newer iteration of Canon’s image processor, Digic 7, instead of Digic 5+. The Mark 2 delivers an 18% increase in resolution, moving from the Mark 3’s 22.3MP sensor, instead, to a larger 26.2MP sensor. Outside of this, both cameras have viewfinders with large 0.71x magnifications.īoth cameras also feature top-deck LCDs, which displays all critical shooting parameters at a single glance. In practice, the minor difference isn’t significant, but it is worth noting. Overall, while it lacks the size, it makes up for that with fantastic functionality and better versatility.īoth cameras feature optical viewfinders, but the Mark 3 provides a 100% viewfinder, while the Mark 2 oddly only has 98%. However, the Mark 2 provides a fully articulating touchscreen display, which offers far superior flexibility when shooting in awkward positions and assists in navigating the camera’s menus.
While both cameras feature rear TFT LCD screens with a resolution of 1.04M dots, the Mark 3 offers a slightly larger 3.2-inch display, compared to only 3.0-inches on the Mark 2. Outside of this, the cameras are identical. The Mark 3 also provides an AF joystick, for immediate and responsive AF point selection, a feature missing on the Mark 2. In this case, the Mark 3 provides an additional custom user setting, C3, while the Mark 2 only offers two, C1-C2. The main difference in their controls comes in the form of added customization and the presence of an AF joystick. Both cameras offer virtually identical physical controls and functionality, though their button positioning differs slightly.
0 kommentar(er)
