Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[DavidRiesenberg]

When comparing the price to the D800, we need to keep in mind that the D700, while a wonderful camera in itself was deep in the shadow of the 5DII it terms of media attention and market share in that segment. So it can be argued that Nikon is in a position that they are forced to wow the media and general population based on both dry spec lists and price.
Canon is in a much more confident position and they feel that they can charge more for their product. That sucks for us Canon users that do not want or cannot jump ship but that's simply the nature of the free market. And the market will ultimately dictate the price.

[caMARYnon]

I would never really consider a 40mp 35mm sensor. Not until a second generation version at least. Image quality is king and even with my 1Ds3 I've taken landscapes that print a meter wide.

High MP = Small pixels = not good for IQ

When Canon offered 21Mp senzor the Nikon's users said the same because they had only 12Mp at that moment. And Nikon was leader in high ISO ...
Let's wait for proff reviews and comparisons   

The 3500US and maybe 3500 EUR here is huge in my opinion. For the moment 5D2 is great.

[tasteofjace]

The 5D3 is better in almost every single way when compared to the 5D2.

Are people even educating themselves on the information??

Lots of people whining about the Megapixel count. I'm guessing they didn't read into how they have used new pixel technology this time around which leads to better quality images and process of colors and light.

But people are lazy I suppose. They see an arbitrary number and immediately take a dump in their pants.

[StevenBrianSamuels]

Who cares about megapixels.  Seriously.  22 megapixels can make HUGE prints.  I'm glad the price has increased so that people who care about megapixels (non pros) won't buy this camera.

You Sir, have no idea what you are spewing. 

 MPs a extremely important to the studio and landscape crowd.  Landscape folks what better detail in big prints.  Studio folks want to satisfy clients needs for higher MPs so clients can crop as much as they want and still have enough MPs for a variety of uses.

In your mind MF folks using huge MP digital backs arent pros?

MF Folks, myself being one use a sensor 3 times the size of a 35mm DSLR. For certain portrait work I use a Leaf Aptus 22mp back from 2004, the pixel pitch is 9 microns and at ISO 50 it noticeably beats the 5D2, 1Ds3 and 1D4 for IQ.

I would never really consider a 40mp 35mm sensor. Not until a second generation version at least. Image quality is king and even with my 1Ds3 I've taken landscapes that print a meter wide.

High MP = Small pixels = not good for IQ

I rent when I need MF (H1 w/ a p30+ back) but it cuts into my budget significantly.  A high MP canon would help me a lot until I can work (and I mean work) up to my own MF gear.  I very much doubt, after skillful sharpening is applied that most of my clients would see any difference but they would love the cropping room.  Some "higher end" clients ...possibly and I would still rent for them till I can get my MF gear.

[evenfy]

Haha, in Norway, the asking price is NOK 29 990, which equals about $5400. It's almost twice the price of the Mark II

[capertillar]

i will wait until the 5d3 can be had for around 3k

i dont really want to invest ~2k in a 5d2 that i know doesnt have all the features i want... i.e. AF and fps
but at the same time, 3500 is also too high

just got to wait it out a bit longer... ^^

[dunkers]

I'm actually looking to sell of my 60D to fund the 5dmk3. It has everything I want minus the fps. But seeing as I've shot a variety of collegiate sports with my 60D, I welcome the increase with open arms.

I had the opportunity to purchase the 5dmk2 when it came out, but was disappointed by its lackluster AF and low light performance.

[briansquibb]

That sucking sound you hear is market-share going to Nikon and Sony. I can not believe the MkIII has only
22 Mega pixels, 2 different memory card formats (ugh), very little (if any) new technology and a hefty price increase. The EF 24 -70 II has no IS. Both at a significantly increased price. The only upside is that my MkII and 24 - 70 are still the best values in the market. I CAN believe that the Canon CEO recently resigned.

Who cares about megapixels.  Seriously.  22 megapixels can make HUGE prints.  I'm glad the price has increased so that people who care about megapixels (non pros) won't buy this camera.

Well I am an amateur and $3500 wont stop me - amateurs are more likely to buy top gear because they are passionate about photography and dont have to justify every dollar spent like a pro. The cost of the cameras are overshadowed by the cost of the lens - my 3 white lens cost twice as much as the 3 pro bodies .....

We may get to the point where an amateur turns up to weddings with better gear than a journeyman pro - oh hang on - that already happens.

Brian

[jrista]

That sucking sound you hear is market-share going to Nikon and Sony. I can not believe the MkIII has only
22 Mega pixels, 2 different memory card formats (ugh), very little (if any) new technology and a hefty price increase. The EF 24 -70 II has no IS. Both at a significantly increased price. The only upside is that my MkII and 24 - 70 are still the best values in the market. I CAN believe that the Canon CEO recently resigned.

WOW!! WTF?? 61 point reticular AF with 14 cross type points...up from a whoppping NINE points, with a SINGLE center cross type!! The 7D's color metering system, vs. the monochromatic one from the 5D II. A bump up in FPS from screamin' 3.9 to 6, moving it into the realm of actual viability for higher speed AF and action photography (you need at least 4.5fps to really do continuous action shooting well, and 6fps, while not as good as the 7D's 8fps, is great for 22.3mp, and better than the D800's 4fps). It does 18 continuous frames (vs. 15 for the 7D with only 18mp and 8fps), which is a huge boon for action shooters. A TWO FULL STOP native ISO improvement from 6400 to 25600, and the ISO 6400 images look STUNNING!! Thats AWESOME for low-light shooters who can't drop $6800 for the 1D X. A 100% viewfinder, up from 98%...owning a 7D, that is unbelievably handy from a composition standpoint. Its even got a sensor resolution TUNED to HD video pulldown, so for those of us who WANT the ability to shoot video as well as stills for our $3500, thats definitely an improvement!

Seriously, this kind of S___ ticks me off. You whiners have SO MUCH CAPABILITY in a camera 1/10th as good as this. And your literally bitching about the 5D III? GET OVER YOURSELVES! Its definitely an improvement.

[briansquibb]

I'm actually looking to sell of my 60D to fund the 5dmk3. It has everything I want minus the fps. But seeing as I've shot a variety of collegiate sports with my 60D, I welcome the increase with open arms.

I had the opportunity to purchase the 5dmk2 when it came out, but was disappointed by its lackluster AF and low light performance.

Did you rent a 5DII for long enough to test these out? Maybe the AF performance takes some getting used to - but the low light performance is amongst the best.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So it's out.  Seems like a great camera, but I'm incredibly disappointed in the price.  After about 4 years after the II, the III comes out at a much higher price tag.  Now, if you look at Apple, they release products every year that are better spec'ed yet they don't increase the price with each release just because it was better than the last iteration.

It's expected that technology improves, right?  I understand the dollar has weakened over the last few years but this just seems like a ridiculous price increase.  Looks like I won't be getting one, not because I can't but because I feel it isn't worth it.

How's everyone else feel about it?

Yeah they didn't give it a pricey 7-8fps mirror/shutter box so why the $800 more?
Sure AF is way better for once, but that is the only improvement and for 4 years well that should be why you pay the same price again, not $800 more. At least match the D800 price.

[LuckyRosco]

I will buy the 5D mkIII no matter how much it costs, that's IF there isn't another camera body coming out at the end of the year (3D). I will only have a few months out of this year to actually travel and take pictures. So I would hate to buy a new camera and not be able to shoot with it for 6 months. For now I will buy the 24-70 L II and use it on my 5DmkII. Who knows what the prices and availablity will be at the end of December. It should be in stock everywhere and there might be a discount on the body by then. Or the 3D High MP monster might be announced by then. I will cross that bridge when I get there.

[SRHelicity]

The 5D3 is better in almost every single way when compared to the 5D2.

Are people even educating themselves on the information??

Lots of people whining about the Megapixel count. I'm guessing they didn't read into how they have used new pixel technology this time around which leads to better quality images and process of colors and light.

But people are lazy I suppose. They see an arbitrary number and immediately take a dump in their pants.

Of course it is! Is anyone arguing that the 5D3 isn't an upgrade from the 5D2?   It better darn well be, considering it's a brand new model being compared to a camera that's several years ago, and it's now priced at a considerable premium to the 5D2 (like comparing the T2i to the 7D).  Honestly, if we assume DSLRs are technology products like many other tech products (point-n-shoots, cell phones, televisions, computers, etc.), then, over the course of several years, we should EXPECT better technology for the same price (or expect significantly lower prices for the same technology).  I'm not giving Canon a pass because they improved on a several-year-old camera.  There aren't many consumer products that don't see relatively significant price reductions over the course of several years, or at least that don't see significant upgrades for similar prices. 

We, as consumers, should demand more.  I still maintain that the 5D3 should be <= $3k.  I'm not a professional, nor do I make big $$, so $3500 is a significant chunk of change for me. If I had a 5D2, I couldn't see myself justifying spending $3500 (+ tax) for the 5D3.  I currently have a 60D, and I've been looking to jump up to FF, but I'd rather get a budget FF (<$2k) with 3-4 fps, less sophisticated AF and AE, etc.; I may end up with a 5D2 assuming the price drops.

[Michael7]

The specs aren't enough of a "jump" IMHO to garner the $3500 price. I'll probably keep my 7D for wildlife/action and pick up a 5D II for landscape.

[Hillsilly]

I'm more annoyed at US$850 for the WFT-E7A wireless file transmitter.  And am reading this right - you need the ST-E3-RT transmitter (US$470) to wirelessly trigger the new flash?  Plus another US$390 for the GP-E2 GPS receiver if you want GPS data?

Seriously people, it's 2012.  We're in the age of connectivity and the cloud.  You'd expect all of the above to be built into a new, $3,500 camera.