There are the previous reviews not much to add, only the now existing choice between the Mark II and Mark III. In my opinion (personal opinion, semi-professional) is even for the ambitious photographers the Mark II (in particular regarding the price range: 1700 /> 3000) currently still the Mark III considered preferable in terms of image quality, we value but should be based on many (very many) options and settings (I'm talking about the attitude of the autofocus fields / groups ect.) and place the slightly faster continuous shooting speed, the extra expense is to reconsider. More exciting, the image quality of the Mark III only in jpeg (and clearly here!) Is better than the Mark II. But who buys such a camera will probably rarely take pictures in JPEG, but rather in RAW.
As DSLR filmmaker but you should make the leap to the Mark III (ISO and moire better).
I stay current even when the Mark II (1300 edition More is better to invest in lenses for me, because they have a much longer "half-life".
