Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[rj79in]

Plus who knows with Canons new pricing even the new rebel may come in at $1599 or so 

Would that include a kit lens???

If so ... which one ;-) ... now don't get any ridiculous ideas ppl

[Martin]

OK. I've got 27" NEC Spectraview, do u think that a person with faulty eyes uses that kind of stuff? Doesn't really matter.

I judge only photos up to ISO 200. Take a closer look @ 100%.

Image 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13-is it sharp for you? That's a quality? Please don't be funny. Take a look on skin, clothes, eyes, lashes, hair. Than go for Nikon samples and have a comparison. It's not my eyes. Probably u see what u want, even having your eyes checked. I am not talking about small differences, I am talking about huge image quality gap.

[ippikiokami]

OK. I've got 27" NEC Spectraview, do u think that a person with faulty eyes uses that kind of stuff? Doesn't really matter.

I judge only photos up to ISO 200. Take a closer look @ 100%.

Image 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13-is it sharp for you? That's a quality? Please don't be funny. Take a look on skin, clothes, eyes, lashes, hair. Than go for Nikon samples and have a comparison. It's not my eyes. Probably u see what u want, even having your eyes checked. I am not talking about small differences, I am talking about huge image quality gap.

Not saying just you but for people who are that worried about it, wouldn't you want to see real raws with the latest version / firmware of the camera yourself before saying something that definitive?

[BillyBean]

Guys, take a look at this data courtesy of www.camelcamelcamel.com. This shows the price tracking of the EOS 7D after initial announcement in early September 2009 through to today. It shows price maintenance up until a certain point, then a dramatic re-adjustment. Sadly, the EOS 5dII doesn't show the same rapid decline, but what this says to me is that Canon does sometimes get initial prices totally wrong, and is forced to adjust them once initial demand subsides, in this case just a few months after announcement. So my option isn't in the above list, it is "I want an EOS 5D Mark III, and I'm willing to wait...but not forever!"

[rj79in]

OK. I've got 27" NEC Spectraview, do u think that a person with faulty eyes uses that kind of stuff? Doesn't really matter.

I judge only photos up to ISO 200. Take a closer look @ 100%.

Image 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13-is it sharp for you? That's a quality? Please don't be funny. Take a look on skin, clothes, eyes, lashes, hair. Than go for Nikon samples and have a comparison. It's not my eyes. Probably u see what u want, even having your eyes checked. I am not talking about small differences, I am talking about huge image quality gap.

A couple of quick points:

* Wait for real life pics to appear before passing judgement;
* IQ depends largely on the person behind the camera;
* Nikon samples ... no wildlife pics, no landscape pics bar one where the focus is on the flowers and not the background so I can't really compare ... ;
* Trees will be surely be softer than books stacked in a library;
* CANON Images do not mention whether shot in RAW or JPEG (notice the file size?) - though you may have a valid point why CANON would post basic JPEG as samples;
* The most valid comparison would come from shooting the same scene with both cameras otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges considering the variables involved;
* Bad marketing doesn't mean bad product - Hell Nikon's commercial in Bangkok was shot in part by a 5DMII http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3976.0.html;
* CANON may not be as stupid as you would like us to believe;

Being an ex-lawyer I could argue this to death but choose not to. I'm not one to slag off a product / person on the basis of 'samples' which are dependent on variables such as human beings behind the camera, choice of lens, choice of focal length, choice of focus point and what not.

Who am I to claim that 5DMIII is the best thing since sliced bread, but I can bet that it won't be as bad as you say. I notice you've slagged off the 5DMII to the extent of claiming that you stopped taking pics with it ... CMON ... with this prejudice, as I said, you are bound to see what you want to see ...

[Axilrod]

i've read other reviews though that specifically say the wheel now does both.  plus he was controlling video volume levels, exactly what the touch sensitiviy was added for.

but think about this:  if the wheel is purely touch sensitive, why does it have those grippy teeth on it still?  if it was touch only wouldn't you think they'd take those off?  teeth don't make sense when you're using a touch wheel that's supposed to be easy to slide your finger around.

Ok cool, I just couldn't find anything saying that it would spin and I didn't see anyone spinning them in the videos.  It's nice to know that you can go either way, and aside from that quote you found everything was kind of unclear.

[Martin]

A couple of quick points:

* Wait for real life pics to appear before passing judgement;
* IQ depends largely on the person behind the camera;
* Nikon samples ... no wildlife pics, no landscape pics bar one where the focus is on the flowers and not the background so I can't really compare ... ;
* Trees will be surely be softer than books stacked in a library;
* CANON Images do not mention whether shot in RAW or JPEG (notice the file size?) - though you may have a valid point why CANON would post basic JPEG as samples;
* The most valid comparison would come from shooting the same scene with both cameras otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges considering the variables involved;
* Bad marketing doesn't mean bad product - Hell Nikon's commercial in Bangkok was shot in part by a 5DMII http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3976.0.html;
* CANON may not be as stupid as you would like us to believe;

Being an ex-lawyer I could argue this to death but choose not to. I'm not one to slag off a product / person on the basis of 'samples' which are dependent on variables such as human beings behind the camera, choice of lens, choice of focal length, choice of focus point and what not.

Who am I to claim that 5DMIII is the best thing since sliced bread, but I can bet that it won't be as bad as you say. I notice you've slagged off the 5DMII to the extent of claiming that you stopped taking pics with it ... CMON ... with this prejudice, as I said, you are bound to see what you want to see ...

Please don't judge me wrong. I did not like my ex 5d2 due to some things: terrible AF, 1/125 real x sync, no lamp supporting AF in dim light, terrible mattering (all images was underexposed, even checked it with my light meeter, but canon service stated it was ok) I just did not have such a problems with Nikon.
My judgment now is only based on samples provided by Canon. For me it is obvious that a company which brings such awaited product to market makes everything they can to show possibly best images. If this is it, they just did not convince me to stay with them. Of course i will probably wait to see the real tests and reviews, but from what I have seen so far, it's not worth even half of the money. All i need is a 5d2 with some tweeks and it seemed that that 5d3 was that kind of a stuff, however a close look (even just a look) on samples completely change my thinking. Samples look like a step back in quality. Samples are described with lens used, parameters, etc so u have this information. In my opinion it's not the person behind the camera, we don't judge the photos itself, but the quality, sharpness-which are connected only to to camera.

[ippikiokami]

A couple of quick points:

* Wait for real life pics to appear before passing judgement;
* IQ depends largely on the person behind the camera;
* Nikon samples ... no wildlife pics, no landscape pics bar one where the focus is on the flowers and not the background so I can't really compare ... ;
* Trees will be surely be softer than books stacked in a library;
* CANON Images do not mention whether shot in RAW or JPEG (notice the file size?) - though you may have a valid point why CANON would post basic JPEG as samples;
* The most valid comparison would come from shooting the same scene with both cameras otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges considering the variables involved;
* Bad marketing doesn't mean bad product - Hell Nikon's commercial in Bangkok was shot in part by a 5DMII http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3976.0.html;
* CANON may not be as stupid as you would like us to believe;

Being an ex-lawyer I could argue this to death but choose not to. I'm not one to slag off a product / person on the basis of 'samples' which are dependent on variables such as human beings behind the camera, choice of lens, choice of focal length, choice of focus point and what not.

Who am I to claim that 5DMIII is the best thing since sliced bread, but I can bet that it won't be as bad as you say. I notice you've slagged off the 5DMII to the extent of claiming that you stopped taking pics with it ... CMON ... with this prejudice, as I said, you are bound to see what you want to see ...

Please don't judge me wrong. I did not like my ex 5d2 due to some things: terrible AF, 1/125 real x sync, no lamp supporting AF in dim light, terrible mattering (all images was underexposed, even checked it with my light meeter, but canon service stated it was ok) I just did not have such a problems with Nikon.
My judgment now is only based on samples provided by Canon. For me it is obvious that a company which brings such awaited product to market makes everything they can to show possibly best images. If this is it, they just did not convince me to stay with them. Of course i will probably wait to see the real tests and reviews, but from what I have seen so far, it's not worth even half of the money. All i need is a 5d2 with some tweeks and it seemed that that 5d3 was that kind of a stuff, however a close look (even just a look) on samples completely change my thinking. Samples look like a step back in quality. Samples are described with lens used, parameters, etc so u have this information. In my opinion it's not the person behind the camera, we don't judge the photos itself, but the quality, sharpness-which are connected only to to camera.

Do you always judge cameras by the sample pics put on their marketing sites? There are a few 20+~ megapixel cameras that have been out in the market for awhile. Can you show me some pictures that directly compare to these samples that all is judged by in your book to illustrate the problems you find in the 5d III?

And in the end..

Honestly like the poster mentioned above. Do you think Canon would be as dumb to release a camera with IQ that is that much worse?  I'm mind blown by some of these comments out there. And why does everyone throw away the fact that a 36mp sensor can possibly resolve detail better. Isn't that the reason why you have higher mp?

Also your problems with the 5d II....Most of those were obvious as soon as the specs were laid out (except your statement about metering). Never did canon say it had vastly improved AF from the 5d, or an AF assist lamp? If those type of things were so important that you would stop using an 5d II because of it why did you buy it in the first place?

[Cannon Man]

There is no way to make something better and still make it cheaper to the public.

I say better because this new camera is a"better class camera" not just an improvement.
Improved built quality, better weather sealing and improved AF makes it a better camera worh every penny!

You can still get the 5D II and get bang for your buck so dont cry when they make better product and give it the right price that it should have.

[rj79in]

A couple of quick points:

* Wait for real life pics to appear before passing judgement;
* IQ depends largely on the person behind the camera;
* Nikon samples ... no wildlife pics, no landscape pics bar one where the focus is on the flowers and not the background so I can't really compare ... ;
* Trees will be surely be softer than books stacked in a library;
* CANON Images do not mention whether shot in RAW or JPEG (notice the file size?) - though you may have a valid point why CANON would post basic JPEG as samples;
* The most valid comparison would come from shooting the same scene with both cameras otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges considering the variables involved;
* Bad marketing doesn't mean bad product - Hell Nikon's commercial in Bangkok was shot in part by a 5DMII http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3976.0.html;
* CANON may not be as stupid as you would like us to believe;

Being an ex-lawyer I could argue this to death but choose not to. I'm not one to slag off a product / person on the basis of 'samples' which are dependent on variables such as human beings behind the camera, choice of lens, choice of focal length, choice of focus point and what not.

Who am I to claim that 5DMIII is the best thing since sliced bread, but I can bet that it won't be as bad as you say. I notice you've slagged off the 5DMII to the extent of claiming that you stopped taking pics with it ... CMON ... with this prejudice, as I said, you are bound to see what you want to see ...

Please don't judge me wrong. I did not like my ex 5d2 due to some things: terrible AF, 1/125 real x sync, no lamp supporting AF in dim light, terrible mattering (all images was underexposed, even checked it with my light meeter, but canon service stated it was ok) I just did not have such a problems with Nikon.
My judgment now is only based on samples provided by Canon. For me it is obvious that a company which brings such awaited product to market makes everything they can to show possibly best images. If this is it, they just did not convince me to stay with them. Of course i will probably wait to see the real tests and reviews, but from what I have seen so far, it's not worth even half of the money. All i need is a 5d2 with some tweeks and it seemed that that 5d3 was that kind of a stuff, however a close look (even just a look) on samples completely change my thinking. Samples look like a step back in quality. Samples are described with lens used, parameters, etc so u have this information. In my opinion it's not the person behind the camera, we don't judge the photos itself, but the quality, sharpness-which are connected only to to camera.

Ok ... so we can agree to disagree. 

Given the fact that you seem to have purchased the 5DII without any recce (I note that the problems mentioned by you were largely out in the open, so to speak), your apprehension towards the 5DIII seems understandable.

However, I am struggling to understand how can one judge the capability of the camera only by looking at 8-10 shots? I guess you are making the same mistake you did with the II, forming an opinion without actually testing the equipment yourself.

I've tried the Nikons myself in the field and can say that these are also very capable cameras. However, having shot with Canon for a considerable length of time, migrating to a new breed is just a step too far from me. As on date, using a Canon camera for me is as familiar as walking / driving and migrating to a whole new system for me is as improbable as is for Paul Scholes to play for Man City ... but this doesn't make Nikons to be bad cameras simply because I cannot adapt.

I remember the II getting all sorts of flak when it was announced but it went on to be one of the best cameras used worldwide. Can't wait to get my hands on the III.

[BillyBean]

There is no way to make something better and still make it cheaper to the public.

You're kidding, right? Have you been on another planet the last 50 years? Sorry, make that 250 years...

I started work on an IBM XT with a 5mb (yes, MEGABYTE) hard drive, and 512k of RAM which cost around £5000....

Go figure.

I want more, I want better, I want cheaper. Guess whose going to be proven correct... If Canon cannot get this, they will go the way of Kodak.

[gn100]

Guys, take a look at this data courtesy of www.camelcamelcamel.com. This shows the price tracking of the EOS 7D after initial announcement in early September 2009 through to today. It shows price maintenance up until a certain point, then a dramatic re-adjustment. Sadly, the EOS 5dII doesn't show the same rapid decline, but what this says to me is that Canon does sometimes get initial prices totally wrong, and is forced to adjust them once initial demand subsides, in this case just a few months after announcement. So my option isn't in the above list, it is "I want an EOS 5D Mark III, and I'm willing to wait...but not forever!"

Another thing to consider is exchange rates - the USD is weaker now than when the 5DII came out. Where I live the 5DII cost NZ $5400 when it came out (that's $4400 US in today's terms). I'm hoping the weaker USD will mean I can buy the 5DIII for a cheaper price than the original 5DII price

[rj79in]

There is no way to make something better and still make it cheaper to the public.

You're kidding, right? Have you been on another planet the last 50 years? Sorry, make that 250 years...

I started work on an IBM XT with a 5mb (yes, MEGABYTE) hard drive, and 512k of RAM which cost around £5000....

Go figure.

I want more, I want better, I want cheaper. Guess whose going to be proven correct... If Canon cannot get this, they will go the way of Kodak.

Comparing apples to oranges won't work. What worked for computer hardware may not work universally especially when the market competition is limited to a select few corporate houses - in this case mostly Canon and Nikon.

[D_Rochat]

There is no way to make something better and still make it cheaper to the public.

You're kidding, right? Have you been on another planet the last 50 years? Sorry, make that 250 years...

I started work on an IBM XT with a 5mb (yes, MEGABYTE) hard drive, and 512k of RAM which cost around £5000....

Go figure.

I want more, I want better, I want cheaper. Guess whose going to be proven correct... If Canon cannot get this, they will go the way of Kodak.

As a consumer, it's your right to want more for less. However, you have to be realistic with your expectations. There are countless posts of "I want my 7D to do the same as the 1D X for $1500".

The computer industry is sort of a thing of it's own. 99% of electronics go up in price rather than down and I hardly doubt that Canon is run by a bunch of mouth breathers that will run it into the ground. Do some Googling and see what the top selling camera is right now and and then tell me that they don't know what they are doing.

[ippikiokami]

There is no way to make something better and still make it cheaper to the public.

You're kidding, right? Have you been on another planet the last 50 years? Sorry, make that 250 years...

I started work on an IBM XT with a 5mb (yes, MEGABYTE) hard drive, and 512k of RAM which cost around £5000....

Go figure.

I want more, I want better, I want cheaper. Guess whose going to be proven correct... If Canon cannot get this, they will go the way of Kodak.

There is a limit to it at any given time. Otherwise while you might get "better" features.. you end up getting less quality.