Had the Mk llls for 2 years and have no complaints, now lagging a bit behind Nikon in some respects, so it's now in the top two instead of the market leader. It is true what they say, to get the best from it you have to use Canons top lenses, I have settled for just three as I take mostly landscape images. 70-200 L 2.8 is usm. 24-105 L F4 is usm. 16-35 LMk ll 2.8. + the 1,4 L extender. Any rubbish images, is really my fault and not the cameras.
The construction and image quality get 5. Features 4 (far too many) I only use 30% but it's there if required. Ease of use 4. Value for money 2. If you want the best you have to pay top dollar.
Problems:
My main beef is with Canon. The sensor was covered in oil spots and ruined a days shooting (far too many to Photoshop out). I had to return it to them at my cost! £47.00 including the insurance which I think was a cheek for a camera costing nearly £6.000. yes I could have taken it back to the retailer but he was 200 miles away and postage would be identical. Apart from that the only other problem it does not like temp in the nineties as it seems to freeze sometimes.
The construction and image quality get 5. Features 4 (far too many) I only use 30% but it's there if required. Ease of use 4. Value for money 2. If you want the best you have to pay top dollar.
Problems:
My main beef is with Canon. The sensor was covered in oil spots and ruined a days shooting (far too many to Photoshop out). I had to return it to them at my cost! £47.00 including the insurance which I think was a cheek for a camera costing nearly £6.000. yes I could have taken it back to the retailer but he was 200 miles away and postage would be identical. Apart from that the only other problem it does not like temp in the nineties as it seems to freeze sometimes.