Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[briansquibb]

Not so - with the same framing the 22mp will always look better than 18mp.

FF shooters are clever enough to have the extra reach lens. So 250mm on a 1.6 would be matched against a 400 on a ff. I know which image will have the best IQ.

Squibby, please. It's unfair to say "well my FF with a lens that costs $7000 more than your lens does better than your crop."

Put that same 400 on the crop and shoot a subject 100 yards away and we'll see who wins.

I'm curious to see how the 5D3 with a 1.4 extender compares to a 7D without. The extender loses you a stop of light, but that's made up for by the much better ISO performance. The main problem is that you can't put that extender on an f/5.6 lens (or the 100-400mm).

Of course the 5D3 + 1.4 = almost $4000, which is about what I paid for my refurbished 1D4.

Fairness doesn't come into this - if you buy a ff then you have to accept the associated costs. So if the budget is not there then you buy the best posiible within the budget. I am not saying the 7D is poor, just that with the right budget the 1DX will be better.

If you really want quality then 80mp MF bodies are available for  $40,000 with schneider lens costing as much again. I would love one of these - but I dont have the budget.

You may have noticed I haven't rushed into buying a 1DX nor a 5D3 - just have a used 1D4 and a used 1Ds3. I am not into ultra long reach stuff but with my kit I can get 16mp with the equivalent of 1560mm reach  using my used lens - this reach is currently not possible with ff.

[wickidwombat]

Not so - with the same framing the 22mp will always look better than 18mp.

FF shooters are clever enough to have the extra reach lens. So 250mm on a 1.6 would be matched against a 400 on a ff. I know which image will have the best IQ.

Squibby, please. It's unfair to say "well my FF with a lens that costs $7000 more than your lens does better than your crop."

Put that same 400 on the crop and shoot a subject 100 yards away and we'll see who wins.

I'm curious to see how the 5D3 with a 1.4 extender compares to a 7D without. The extender loses you a stop of light, but that's made up for by the much better ISO performance. The main problem is that you can't put that extender on an f/5.6 lens (or the 100-400mm).

Of course the 5D3 + 1.4 = almost $4000, which is about what I paid for my refurbished 1D4.

well i am really impressed with my 1.4Tc on the 300f4L at 420mm 5.6 on the 5Dmk2 its quite good
i'll get some pics i took with it (note i am not a bird shooting fanatic so the pictures i post may be rubbish by everyone elses standards

[D_Rochat]

>:(Hugely disappointed in the price?  No, hugely disappointed in the price AND the 5D III.  You are definitely not getting your monies worth.  I have been a Canon user since before the F-1 35mm.  I currently use the 5D and was waiting for the 5D III.  I was terribly disappointed in the specs.  Canon has definitely shot themselves in the foot.   If you want to be emotional about Canon go ahead but, make yourself a Ben Franklin spec comparison list with the 5D III and the Nikon D800.  I'm sad, but I'm thinking of switching my gear to Nikon as Canon has gotten to be a big ProMo with a lot of hype and no meat in the sandwich.  Another thing why is Canon going to control the price?  What happened to free trade?  If I were a dealer, sell me the camera at $XX, suggest a MSRP but don't tell me what I HAVE to sell it at.  Isn't that a violation of free trade?  There goes the competition!  Seems Canon is trying to protect the smaller dealers so that the bigger houses don't beat them on price.  Well, are they or are they just afraid of losing a lot of dealers because there is a lot of competition.  Instead of controlling the price point just sell to ALL dealers at the same price instead of giving quanity discounts.  That would level the playing field.
My two cent worth!
Image Zone Photography

Canon may not have designed the camea you were waiting for, but they hardly shot themselves in the foot. The 5D mkIII is currently the top selling body right now, even compared to P&S that are a fraction of the price. Is the price high? Maybe a little, but I think it's worth it.

[digicV]

Not disappointed at all. Get used to it.

[Sinsear]

>:(Hugely disappointed in the price?  No, hugely disappointed in the price AND the 5D III.  You are definitely not getting your monies worth.  I have been a Canon user since before the F-1 35mm.  I currently use the 5D and was waiting for the 5D III.  I was terribly disappointed in the specs.  Canon has definitely shot themselves in the foot.   If you want to be emotional about Canon go ahead but, make yourself a Ben Franklin spec comparison list with the 5D III and the Nikon D800.  I'm sad, but I'm thinking of switching my gear to Nikon as Canon has gotten to be a big ProMo with a lot of hype and no meat in the sandwich.  Another thing why is Canon going to control the price?  What happened to free trade?  If I were a dealer, sell me the camera at $XX, suggest a MSRP but don't tell me what I HAVE to sell it at.  Isn't that a violation of free trade?  There goes the competition!  Seems Canon is trying to protect the smaller dealers so that the bigger houses don't beat them on price.  Well, are they or are they just afraid of losing a lot of dealers because there is a lot of competition.  Instead of controlling the price point just sell to ALL dealers at the same price instead of giving quanity discounts.  That would level the playing field.
My two cent worth!
Image Zone Photography

Canon may not have designed the camea you were waiting for, but they hardly shot themselves in the foot. The 5D mkIII is currently the top selling body right now, even compared to P&S that are a fraction of the price. Is the price high? Maybe a little, but I think it's worth it.

Stop feeding the trolls. >.<

[chrysek]

I am disapointed with the mark 3, why canon included usb 2.0? Looks like wft and gps using usb, will there be a way to connect both at the same time? How about wft, it has gig nic, which is 1000mbit connection, if it connects via usb 2.0 which is less than 500mbit why the hell did they do that? Whats the point? Shape if wft??? Ugly, who will buy this? How about the flash with radio transmiter/receiver, most photographers using already pw or other device, if u have studio you will have both? Canon and other transmiters? What were they thinking

[localblakink@me.com]

This is my first time on writing on the forums! I have been a fan of the site for several years now and read others post.  For a minute now I keep reading how people are disappointed over the mark III's price point.  I bought my mark II almost 2 years ago for 2500, which is a grand less than the new one.  Maybe someone else can confirm this but when the mark II first came out was it the same price ? Or was it a couple hundred more?  That's really irrelevant to my point!  People need to look at the worlds economies to really understand this. My opinion is that the dollar is the global currency and when our own government does things like Q.E. 2.  That weakens the dollar because they just want to print money, that causes inflation and the price of all goods go up!  How much was a gallon of milk when the 5D II first arrived?  So maybe if our fiscal house was in order and these stupid politicians balanced the budget and didn't spend OUR money like a drunken sailor (No offense to sailors!)  maybe the price wouldn't be as steep as we think it is!  Maybe it would only be a 500 jump, and only be a 3000 dollar camera!  The cost of everything has gone up!  That is my opinion and we all know what opinions are like!  Just thought I would give a different perspective on it.  Also I am perfectly happy with the mark III specs.  A 2stop improvement with a way better focusing system!.... He'll yes!  Let's all be honest people are just mad because they want bragging rights over Nikon!  In my opinion I really don't want or need a 36 mp body.  Way to big of files for me with what I do.  That would really slooooow down some machines when processing!  .... I will def. be purchasing a mark III!

[dbduchene]

Canon has there marketing group as does Sony and Nikon. I can say that at least one of the latter's marketing and engineering teams are VERY happy with the mark 3 and feel that it has truly left a door open for them to gain some market share. They also feel that it was a short term choice that will cost Canon over the long run. Time will tell whos marketing group is right.

[kdsand]

Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony

a few numbers form wikipedia:

sony = 168,200 employees
canon = 199,820 employees

sony net income = US $ -2.96 billion (2011)
canon net income = US $ 3.2 billion (2011)

Interesting?
point brought up in the writing on the wall topic.
I feel sorry for my wallet.
 

[x-vision]

They also feel that it was a short term choice that will cost Canon over the long run.

My thoughts exactly.

[gecko]

What have they been doing for 4 years is an interesting question.

5DIII is an enticing proposition, but the body is heavily 7D and the new AF system is from the 1DX.

Is there much 5DIII specific development?

[briansquibb]

What have they been doing for 4 years is an interesting question.

5DIII is an enticing proposition, but the body is heavily 7D and the new AF system is from the 1DX.

Is there much 5DIII specific development?

The sensor...

[Sallivres]

I just pre-ordersd mine, just 2 weeks more to go....

[well_dunno]

Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony

a few numbers form wikipedia:

sony = 168,200 employees
canon = 199,820 employees

sony net income = US $ -2.96 billion (2011)
canon net income = US $ 3.2 billion (2011)

Interesting?
point brought up in the writing on the wall topic.
I feel sorry for my wallet.
 

Conclusion from those figures are drawn a bit too soon I would say: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/index.html

Annual profit and number of employees are not the whole story, revenues of Sony are twice of what Canon made in 2011:


Rank    Company    Revenues    Profits
      ($ millions)   ($ millions)
73      Sony   83,845   -3,031
         
204   Canon   42,246   2,81

2010 shows some similar results:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/index.html
69   Sony        77,696   -439
216   Canon   34,292   1,407

Canon seems more profitable yes, that is known - but Sony has seriously higher business volume...

[smirkypants]

Canon seems more profitable yes, that is known - but Sony has seriously higher business volume...

Sony is huge and has its fingers in a million pies (electronics, video games, cell phones, computers, movie studios...). Canon is an imaging company.

I'd imagine what Canon spends imaging dwarfs that of Sony.