Nick49: I paid £1800 or thereabouts for the mark II. 4 years later and a 35% ish mark up? Canon must think the mark II was underpriced. This is making up for that.
1 Look at what was your GBP worth then and compae it with what it is worth now.
2. Much of value of the camera is in the value of the sensor. And much of value of the sensor is ( besides obvious megapixels) in its noise rating, sensitivity and colour depth ( bit resolution). Considerably imroved sensor can easily "lift" camera value.
Let's wait for the real tests.
For now, mkIII seems to be everything I expected - modernised mkII with improved sensor.
ZAnton: Haha! :"Canon isn't making specific claims for how much of an improvement these changes make to the raw output but, once subjected to the Digic 5+'s processing, it will claim a 2-stop improvement in the JPEG images."
I guess digic 5+ does better job than Intel i7 + Lightroom3. =)))
So now it's clear. This is an old 5D mk2 with the new AF for $1300 overprice. Somebody in Canon should be fired.
Maybe you should be reading more. Especially stuff on sensors. More specifically, photosensors.
They are NOT all the same, good ones can cost a fortune and number of pixels alone is FAR from boeing alpha and omega of sensor capabilities.
Moreover, increasing resolution tends to screw sensors sensitivity and intensity resolution.
Since I make most of my photos in enclosed environment, I bump into picture noise and low colour depth FAR earlier than low resolution.
For most of my photos even 8Mpix would be more than enough, but noise and low effective colour depth are a problem.
And If you really want to see where 5DmkII jumps far above 7D, just look at the noise figures. All techno candies in the world can't help you filter out noise, once it is recorded.
Noise figures and colour depth at low light condition will make mk III shine or bust above anything else.
Megapixels are just PR move for filtering idiots in or out, depending on intended camera audience...