Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My next upgrade...

« on: January 20, 2013, 02:08:38 PM »

So I managed to get the 16-35mm and I got it for $835. That saved quite a bit of money!

This leaves ~$4,350 for the other things I was looking at.

Velbon makes some nice affordable tripods and monopods. And I agree fully with RickSpringfield that you should try them in a shop, see what you like etc.

The Sony RX100 has some great reviews as has the RX1. Some people here also talk none stop about the new Fujis such as the X100s and X-Pro2. I really like the look of the RX1.

As for a new camera, unless you have loads of cash, why not keep hold of the 7D and enjoy that for a couple more years. I try to make any tech I buy last 5 years or so. You still get great pics from your 7D and there will always be something better so why not hold off on that purchase.

Sell my 7D? Never. It's fantastic for shooting horse shows because of the crop factor and the FPS. But with portraits and landscapes it can start to fall behind. Maybe someday, when I can afford to upgrade to 1D, but not any time soon. I managed to save up $5,200 so that's what we're working with here.

I really am not sure where in my reply to you, you think I suggested you sell your 7D. 

Regardless, you really should wait before buying a 5D Mark III to see if Canon are going to release a 7D Mark II and when. Could be a very interesting camera if they do.

You said "keep hold of your 7D" so I thought you thought I was going to sell mine!

I'm not really interested in a 7D Mark II to be honest. I want a full frame.

I'd esp. advise a good tripod *head* that allows for smooth movement even if the camera is held stable - in my case that was more expensive than the actual tripod. And you probably should get some advice on what system to use if you didn't decided it yet (I'm using Arca Swiss, but it's rather uncommon in Germany). As for the tripod legs, do you need max. stability for extra long exposures or just a sturdy version that you still can carry yourself w/o a golf cart?

I need something light but I also want stability.

http://www.amazon.com/SIRUI-Ballhead-Quick-Release-Capacity/dp/B00317UGY4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1358706194&sr=1-1&keywords=SIRUI+G-20+36mm+Ballhead

This is my current ballhead. It's been pretty secure. My tripod though--an off brand that I got for cheap at good will but looked sturdy ended up having the joints in the legs snap from repeated folding up and traveling. I guess I should be glad I only lost $10 on that purchase? I don't know what it cost new.

The tricky thing is, I don't want to spend a thousand dollars on a tripod + head combo. Maybe someday I'll get arca swiss and really right stuff heads but right now I'm still building up a camera set-up and my biggest lens is 70-200mm. I'm not very efficient with a tripod yet so I want to practice and really figure out what I'm doing with it to know what I want out of it. There's some creative stuff you can do with tripods and horses as well as tripods and landscapes.

You Americans should really appreciate having a working craiglist btw, in Germany there are many smaller different sites but nowhere photog gear is to be found, that's why I just bought a *new* 17-40L (with Canon rebate) because the ebay prices were 85+% of the new lens...

Ebay can be ridiculous sometimes and that's why I try to sell my gear on craigslist. Ebay charges like 15% sales commission and when I'm selling something that's worth a thousand bucks that really hurts me. I can charge less than I charge on ebay and make more money on craigslist. I totally appreciate it.

But seems to pay, so watch out for envious photogs crossing the street :-p

Haha, it does and it doesn't. Part of the money I saved up came from an INSANELY lucky find I had at Goodwill. I found a designer purse for $4. Looked it up on ebay and the thing was going for over a grand. Needless to say I sold it. Horse photography is rarely a well paying venue unless you are one of the pros paid to do the big shows. Summer and Winter are off seasons while Spring and Fall are the on seasons. During the spring show season I can make quite a bit of money selling prints, but I'm not making a livable salary or anything. This is just a hobby and most of the money goes either to the hobby itself or to buying horsey things for myself at shows. It involves waking up at 4AM and driving an hour to a show, being on my feet all day and then getting home around 9pm.

Throwing a wild card into the mix, if you are keeping your 7D and don't need the super top flight AF options of the 5DIII, why not look at the 6D, which is great in bad light, offers as good a picture quality as the 5DIII (I'll not get into the tables and charts over which is best), leaving a considerable amount to buy the 16-35, 24-70, tripod and compacts, but also grab the 135mm f2.0 L which will give you some low light reach into an indoor event arena, adding a 1.4x extender for a tad more reach, or alternatively enable you to put some cash aside for the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII six month down the line.

The 6D was super tempting but the focus system just doesn't do it for me. The 5D3's is much more responsive when it comes to moving objects. While I do portraits and lanscapes and hope to do it more when I have a camera that's better suited for them, many of my shots are candid and of the photojournalist type. I agree the picture quality is pretty much the same. The viewfinder, weathersealing + autofocus system makes it a dealbreaker for me though and I say that after using it myself and comparing it. 

I've been drooling over the 135mm for awhile now and your recommendation makes trying to avoid it even harder! It may be the perfect stopgap between now and me saving up to replace my 70-200 with the f/2.8 version.

Now you're making me re-think which lenses to go with

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My next upgrade...

« on: January 20, 2013, 04:14:52 AM »

Hm... Yes... Gitzo. I will try that model out tomorrow. I haven't seen Really Right Stuff carried locally unfortunately.

The real question here is which things I should get now and which can wait until summer. Possible combinations...

Combo 1

• 16-35mm f/2.8 ($1100)
• 24-70 f/2.8 ($1350)
• Sony RX100 ($650)
• Tripod (~$300)

Total: $3,400 (leaves ~$1,700 to go towards saving up for the 5D3, or wiggle room for a nicer tripod)

Combo 2

• 16-35mm f/2.8 ($1100)
• Canon 5D Mark 3 ($3,000 on sale right now)
• Tripod (~$300)

Total: $4,400 (leaves ~$500)

Combo 3

• 16-35mm f/2.8 ($1100)
• Sony RX100 ($650)
• Tripod (~$300)

Total: $2050 (it'd only take a month to save up for the 5D3 if I decide I need it right away, or if I decide I can wait I can get the 24-70)

Some of the items will have sales tax and some won't, hence the rough estimations that seem inaccurate.

Camera lenses sell for less on craigslist around where I live than they do online, that's how I got my 17-40mm and it was $150 less than ebay and in superb condition. I just make sure to try the lens first. Right now there's an ad for a 16-35 on craigslist for $900 so I may check that out.

The other thing, too, is that I may opt for upgrading my 70-200 into an f/2.8 and adding more prime lenses in. Horse photography is tough business.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Potential upgrade from 7D

« on: January 20, 2013, 02:36:15 AM »

It honestly depends. I think what you should do is order your lenses FIRST, then decide. You're using a really low quality lens. I hate my noise performance at F4 on the 17-40mm but the camera is a godsend when I'm using my 50mm @ f1.4.

Example:


If you have the money to do it, and you shoot a lot of low-light photography and not a lot of sport photography, then I honestly say go for it. Speaking as someone who is stubbornly refusing to part with her 7D and planning to add a 5D3 as a second camera, I honestly say if the 7D isn't doing what you want, upgrade. I would however suggest trying those lenses out first on your camera, because then you may decide you don't need to upgrade anymore!

The 16-35mm lens on the 5D3 creates fantastic pictures. Not sure about the Tamron as I am not a fan of tamron's quality.

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My next upgrade...

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:45:17 AM »

Velbon makes some nice affordable tripods and monopods. And I agree fully with RickSpringfield that you should try them in a shop, see what you like etc.

The Sony RX100 has some great reviews as has the RX1. Some people here also talk none stop about the new Fujis such as the X100s and X-Pro2. I really like the look of the RX1.

As for a new camera, unless you have loads of cash, why not keep hold of the 7D and enjoy that for a couple more years. I try to make any tech I buy last 5 years or so. You still get great pics from your 7D and there will always be something better so why not hold off on that purchase.

Sell my 7D? Never. It's fantastic for shooting horse shows because of the crop factor and the FPS. But with portraits and landscapes it can start to fall behind. Maybe someday, when I can afford to upgrade to 1D, but not any time soon. I managed to save up $5,200 so that's what we're working with here.

 

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My next upgrade...

« on: January 19, 2013, 11:17:30 PM »

Well, this is probably not what you want to hear ... but I wouldn't buy a tripod without going hands on.  I bought a tripod about 8 months ago and it was a Manfrotto and I thought it was the cats pajamas.  Until, a friend of mine was over and I used his tripod and I was blown away by how easy it was to use ... (but mostly what a dullard I was for not even knowing about it).

So, I sold my old one as punishment, and then vowed I wouldnt actually buy another one until I could try out a few and decide what I liked or didnt like.  And low and behold, I am completely happy now.  But the quest wasn't overnight.  Actually the closest place I have to check out a wide variety of tripods is like 150 miles from my front door.  They carried Gitzo, Manfrotto, Fiesel, and a handful of other brands too.  The best part was ... they were all sitting out on the floor and I could try to collapse them and carry them and extend them and all that stuff.  And when all was said and done, they price matched B&H ... so I was thrilled.

Now, my sticks of choice weren't less than 300$ so I won't mention.  A couple things that I would have never known before going down this path though:
 - They make tripods with center columns which level your head so you don't have to move the legs at all (really nice)
 - They make a wide variety of barrel diameters for the legs.  Some have an obnoxious diameter, and others are ticonderoga #2 ish thin.  I had no idea.
 - There are a zillion ways to make the snappy or turny doohickies which secure the legs
 - Some tripods legs only 'lock' at specified angles and move freely outside of those angles
 - Weight varies greatly.  There are actually tripods which feel so heavy you probably couldnt stand to take them anywhere but the studio.  Before I went, this wouldnt have been a consideration at all.  By the time I left, I would say this was maybe second only to sturdiness.
- Height varies greatly.  Sometimes I fully extended the legs and the column and thought 'Wow.  If I actually mounted a head on here to shoot this would topple to the ground in the mildest of climates'

At the end of the day ... the one I selected only received modest B&H reviews, but you know what ... it really works well for me.  But I think had I not actually fiddled with these up front, I would have been sending tripods back and forth to B&H or amazon like 10x.

Good info!

I'm lucky enough to have several stores carrying higher end tripods nearby, though the model selection is limited. I guess I'll go and play "legos" with them and set a whole bunch up to see which ones are the least annoying! I would expand my tripod "budget" for carbon fiber because I like things being light.

I miss having a tripod. I did some casual commercial photography for a barn I'm associated with and I had to do it without a tripod in 28 degree weather. I had to take a shot, readjust the settings, take another one and hope they aligned well and the DoF was flattering. I often ended up with very shallow pictures. To me, they were awful, though the business raved about them. I do much better with a tripod than without. You can actually see some of those pictures in the 17-40mm lens thread I just posted in.

6

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

« on: January 19, 2013, 11:09:22 PM »

17-40 F/4L On the Canon 7D

No tripod, and with the exception of the last two I was doing this bare handed in 28 degree weather so I was freezing up. So they're a lot less artsy than the incredible ones in this thread.




Mid afternoon, clear skies.




Late morning, clear skies.

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My next upgrade...

« on: January 19, 2013, 10:48:26 PM »

$300 for the tripod without a head since I have a head.

The troublesome thing is that while I really want the 5D Mark III, it might be better to get the lenses and compact first and then add it to my collection this summer. I want to see what I can achieve with my 7D when I actually have a wider aperture to work with on the wide angle end. The 5D3 will no doubt be a huge improvement as a landscaping and portrait lens but I'd like to prime my skills on the 7D in the mean time. I'm also really disliking not having my backup compact around. It's affecting me quite a bit on a day to day basis. 

But I've been having a lot of issues where it's better to do manual focus and I've kind of been wanting a camera that was a little less dumb when it comes to focusing on landscapes, portraits, etc. Which is where the 5D3 comes in. Decisions, decisions...

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / My next upgrade...

« on: January 19, 2013, 09:25:49 PM »

Hello all! It's been awhile. I've had my 7D for a year and a half now and I have gotten so much use out of it, still love using it.

On my list of things I "need" to get, there's the following:

• 5D Mark 3
• 16-35mm f/2.8
• 24-70mm f/2.8
• small compact for every day stuff, either a Panasonic LX-7 or the Sony RX100
• A tripod that isn't cheap/broken like mine currently is

My compact panasonic died, and I had the luxury of borrowing a friend's RX100 that day. Holy moly, the pictures on the thing were incredible for a compact. It's almost irresistable to have my new "pocket" camera be something that good. However I had been looking to eventually replace my Panasonic with the LX7, another nice model. Tough choice. After the death of my compact I realized how much I had been using/relying on it for every day photos around where I work and such. I lug around my 7D and it's a beast and gets much better DoF than the compact cameras, but it isn't as versatile (juggling 3 lenses).

However my camera fund is now up again and I can afford a 5D Mark 3 now, though my top priority is getting rid of this 17-40 (the F4 is just extremely limiting since it's my indoor lens) and replacing it with the 16-35mm. I can actually get both, and I just got paid for some commercial shots I took of a farm which would add even more to the fund.

I could get both lenses, and the compact, and thus have an upgraded set-up in both areas to what I have now. Or I can add a second body in with the 5D3 and just get the 16-35 leaving some saving room to get the next lens and compact by summer. Getting the second body would mean having a really nice camera for portraits and something that does better with wide landscapes (something I struggle with currently). But then I'd ideally have both the 16-35 and the 24-70 in order for the dual camera set-up to work well. Come summer I'll have enough for all the things on my list (horse show season all spring = $$$ for me), but I'm prioritizing in the mean time.

The tripod I'm getting either way since mine broke. Recommendations for one again would be spectacular, looking to spend < $300.

Soo... suggestions?

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.

« on: July 07, 2012, 03:32:55 AM »

The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.

Switching to FF will not magically fix your skin tones, Its your processing that will do that.

Any tips for getting the exposure correct? 

The FF would help with crop factor and IQ moreso than actual skin and individual shots is what I meant. I'll have to download a trial of LR and see what I can accomplish with it...

Use spot meter on your 7D, and get the metering for your subjects skins tones first. Determine if its accurate by your histogram readings because darker or lighter skin tones will throw your meter off. Use that setting you determine and should be perfect skin tones, and if not, Process the RAWs to correct it in post.

Yes, FF is better than crop in every way but I still keep my 7D for strobist/sports/reach that it provides me. I believe you should reach the limits of your camera before deciding to purchase a much more expensive camera.

Thanks for the tip. I shoot raw. It's not just skin tone, though. It's the way the lighting falls on the skin.

Also, always be mindful of where your light source is.  Unless you are going for a specific effect with side or back lighting try to keep your back to the sun so that there is even lighting on faces etc...  Even in harsh mid day light you can increase your chances of a decent photo by eliminating harsh shadows over facial features. 

If you are trying to isolate your subject more from the back ground shoot at a wider aperture (smaller f stop number), longer focal length and fill the frame with your subject. 

When your camera is set to AWB it is always trying to figure out what neutral gray is and bases all other colors off of this assumption.  Sometimes a simple WB adjustment in post to "warm" up the scene will help with the harsh lighting and overpower the tones that make skin look pale.

Biggest thing.... shoot, shoot, shoot.  And in a wide variety of light.  Go out at sunrise and sunset, shoot when overcast etc....  You'll figure it out.  Your camera and lens are just fine so have tons of fun learning... 

I wish I could control the lighting in those scenarios. Unfortunately we were trying to get shots in front of landmarks and city scapes so I had little control over where to put them. I'm wary of using a flash directly in the face of the subject when doing this, but I see no other way to get good skin smoothness otherwise. I have a 320ex.

The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.

Switching to FF will not magically fix your skin tones, Its your processing that will do that.

Any tips for getting the exposure correct? 

The FF would help with crop factor and IQ moreso than actual skin and individual shots is what I meant. I'll have to download a trial of LR and see what I can accomplish with it...

Are they jpg or raw images?  If you are shooting jpeg, you are letting the camera guess at the right colors, and it might not always come out like what you see.  When you use RAW, you are getting information off the sensor, and its pretty easy to change the color to something you like in DPP or lightroom, aperture, DXO, etc.
If the subject is shaded as in the 3rd image, (it looks like shaded), fill flash will help.
Colors and skin tones are very much a matter of personal preference, and you will want to make them look like what your eye saw.

RAW exclusively. The colors aren't what bugs me because I can fix that, it's the smoothness of the skin and how harsh shadows fall on the face. By fill flash, you mean turning the flash power way down to fill up the face just enough to balance with the background? Hmm, I didn't think of that...

These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits.

The real issue here is light.

The first image is shot under much higher sun, it's harder light, and can easily wash colors out because it's on a higher angle and generally looks bad if you don't know how to use it.

The second image, the one you seem to like, was shot indoors, under lower ambient, where it's softer, and coming from "all over" as opposed to from one specific angle up in the sky.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the editing will make the difference, it might HELP fix problems, but if you shoot it really well, you shouldn't have to do much editing at all. If it was all done really well in the camera, then the very minor things will help get an over all better image like white balance.

Reason I asked for advice is I don't want to spend a lot of time post processing, ESPECIALLY in situations like this where I have to use the shots and show them to people (and half of them must be salvaged with more than basic pp). If it was just me goofing around, shooting for fun it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The first picture was shot around 7:30pm (here the sun doesn't set until 9:45pm). The 3rd shot was done around 3:30PM (both were cloudless days). I agree that lighting is an issue here, but one issue I encountered was when I used exposure alone to light up the foreground the faces just looked washed out.

Like others have said, focus on photographing the light. Find good light first. Then put a subject in it.

Can't control that when the location is picked for you

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.

« on: July 06, 2012, 01:18:27 PM »

The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.

Switching to FF will not magically fix your skin tones, Its your processing that will do that.

Any tips for getting the exposure correct? 

The FF would help with crop factor and IQ moreso than actual skin and individual shots is what I meant. I'll have to download a trial of LR and see what I can accomplish with it...

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.

« on: July 06, 2012, 01:07:50 PM »

I don't know what's going on here. One of the things I look for when shooting portraits is that the skin has almost a "creamy" look to it. I have shot portraits like this before without issue. However when I went to take some pictures as usual in the mid-afternoon sun yesterday I ended up with terrible skin detail/tone.

This is a shot where I actually managed to achieve something:


It's close to what I want, though not fully up to my standards.

This is one of my best examples, and oddly enough one of my earliest photos with this camera:


However, when I went to shoot yesterday, I got a bunch of really mediocre shots that looked like they could have been shot with my point-and-shoot. Not sure what I did wrong with the settings here.


70mm f/8 1/640

Almost all of my pictures from that day ended up with sub-tier quality.

Do you think I should have shot with a wider aperture instead? Help me out here. I've been considering adding a 5d mk iii to my camera collection so I can have a second body that's better at shots of people, but I know it won't help me take better photos.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 vs D800 sales numbers

« on: May 14, 2012, 12:35:52 PM »

in my mind, (and i might be very wrong here) i think that sales figures,especially for online retailers, only tell part of the story. sales figures give more of an indication of how successful the MARKETING is. Just because someone buys the camera doesnt mean they like it or that they keep it. FOR EXAMPLE nikon can sell 100 D800's but then 80 people can return or resell them because they are dissatisfied with them. the sales figures will still show 100 sales but it doesnt say how may people actually like/keep the camera. same with canon, same with apple, same with pretty much everything.

It's not just that....if Amazon got 250 5D3's in and sold the say two weeks ago, and are now sold out....and they get 250 D800's in this week and sell them, where do you think the D800 is going to go in the list?

Simply put, that list does not in any way represent the total number of units sold of anything.  If it did, the 5D2 would be way the hell up in the listing.   That list isn't an absolute, its a sliding window reference.  4-6 weeks back the 5D3 was at the top of that list.

I'll repeat myself by saying we also don't know how many cameras are being shipped to resellers to sell.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 vs D800 sales numbers

« on: May 14, 2012, 10:36:33 AM »

I spoke to the owner of the camera shop I use a couple of weeks ago about the 5D3 and I was told that both Nikon and Canon have been giving the local shops a hard time by not shipping anything to the resellers. He also mentioned that he'll get maybe 2-3 5D3s in one shipping and that's supposed to last him 2-4 weeks. Basically, both companies are trying to create an illusion of high demand for an item. There's no doubt that a lot of people are buying the 5D3, but maybe less than the constantly out-of-stock status would have you believe.

In America in the past, when Nikon releases a camera that competes with a Canon camera at a lower price, canon will match the price, and vice versa. Maybe this won't happen in Europe, but if it's a constant pattern, I can see it happening with the 5D3 in America this year.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Old News... Great News!

« on: May 14, 2012, 04:12:11 AM »

lol

This is funny.

I guess i am lucky cause my wife is into photography too. So we can share lenes or she can use my L lenes. 
She suggested me to get 10-22 and 24-105 too. She just bought me a 70-200 F4 IS for my birthday.

You're lucky your wife likes to share. My fiance and I use separate cameras (right now it's mostly because he can't take a good shot with mine, and because if he did get a dslr it would be Nikon). I told him if he got a Rebel he'd be on his own with lenses because I'm very anal about keeping mine clean and pristine.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 13, 2012, 07:34:46 PM »

To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer.

And how do you determine what a product is "worth" ? We have something called a "market place" that does a very good job of determining what something is "worth".  I put it to you this thing called a market place will sort it out, and neither the manufacturer nor the consumer has the power to dictate what the optimal market price for the item is.

Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price.

To me, all that indicates is that "the consumer" is not part of the target market for that product. If the consumer doesn't find the item to be worth the asking price, they may decline to purchase it. For example, I declined to purchase a medium format digital back. This doesn't necessarily mean that the manufacturer is "greedy", just that it isn't right for me.  The same is true of the 5D Mark III (I already own a MkII)

That's how this thing called a "market place" works. If "the consumer" in aggregate, really believes the item to be overpriced, the item will fail to sell at that price and the seller will usually find that they get more revenue by lowering their price.

By the way, gradually lowering their price is one way to effectively do "price discrimination" -- that is, if 10 people are willing to pay 3500 and 10 people are willing to pay 3000, you want your revenue to be 65000, not 35000 (if you had a fixed price of 3500) or 60000.

If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value

I don't understand why anyone is "complaining". No-one is forcing them to buy that or any other product, and it's not as though that is the only body that is compatible with Canon gear. There are a number of other very good camera bodies that will work with the accessories you have.

(usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

Again, if you're in the target market for this product, AND you're one of the people who needs to own the latest model almost immediately after its release, you probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and really won't sweat $500.

I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.

Again, what is your measure of value ?

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make. Some products sell for 50x what they cost to produce, while others might sell for 1.2x, 3x or even .8x. When nobody cares or does anything about it, these prices stay where they are. When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down. Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain. I've seen plenty of professionals with more than enough money to afford the 5D3 pointing out in reviews that the price wasn't equal to the value of the product, especially when considering competition. It's currently overpriced when keeping all of those factors in mind. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).