I did think the price was high at first and
Then I saw the ISO performance image samples.
And then I realised that the AF was light years better then the MKII
and then I realised this things can shoot at 6 fps
and then I realised this is a completely new gapless pixel sensor design
and then I realised this had weather ceiling
and I wondered ..... Is a 1000 dollars above the price of the current MKII really that much extra for all these PRO features?
Years ago people spent $2000+ for a laptop. Now you get 3 to 4 times faster CPU, 2 to 3 times bigger memory and hard drive, and much lighter weight. Are you going to pay $4000+ for a laptop?
Supply and demand determine the market price. 3500 might be a right price for the market. However, people shouldn't think 1000 dollars more is okay to buy some new features from a new device. You are comparing the two different cameras from different age and background.
Not everything works this way. Certain things improve faster for less money, like RAM and HD space. Certain things improve slower, like monitors or cars. Look at lenses, the lenses are improving but they're also costing a lot more money. You can't expect everything to behave like computers.
I agree some industry improves very slow. However, camera industry have improved a lot, right? I mean camera body, not lenses. I do believe 5D3's cost is lower than 5D2's cost when 5D2 just released. I don't want to argue the $3500 list price. I believe Canon did its homework for the market and think that's the right price. What's the part I don't agree is people comparing the new device and 3 year old device and say it is worth for the extra $1000. I think that not logical.
Some people say the price of many stuff goes up. Think about what kind stuff are them. Please think about inflation and manufacturing cost.
Again, I don't want to argue the $3500 list price. However, I just cannot agree the way people compare the prices of two products from different time.