The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial. Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.
I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.
Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.
What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.
You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.
I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.
It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.
Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.
I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000
