What would make $3500 for 5DmIII justifiable for you?

[Meh]

While I plan to buy a 5d3 I don't see what "justifies" the price outside of aggressive business practice. For me, nothing added to it would change my feeling. I've priced products for markets, and I suspect if I had been Canon, I'd have chosen this price too. I priced aggressively. To us consumers, the $3500 seems a shock at first, but I suspect Canon's thinking takes into account:

1. A huge pent up demand that will create strong initial sales. No reason not to milk this and lower the price over time as demand slows -- if it does slow.

2. A sub-$3k price would probably have meant turnover of nearly the entire 5D2 populace, and I don't think they can produce at that level. So, you price a lot of people out at $3500 and give them a 5D2 alternative. That keeps demand at manageable levels that can match profit forecasts. In reality, both products can create images better than what 95% of users need.

So, "justified" doesn't work for me, but I think I understand their motives. We'll agree to disagree, I'll buy the product and we'll both go on our way.

I quoted Benny because that's pretty much my thinking -- as it was when I bought a T2i at half the price (or less) than a 7D two years ago. Obviously, you don't get close to the AF and speed of the 7D with a T2i, but for someone coming back into photography, it was an excellent first DSLR. It gave me a great Canon DSLR education, and I still contend it can take excellent pictures. It also gave me time to acquire some better lenses than I already had with the intent of moving up.

The 5D3 has as much of the 1Dx as I could reasonably need or want. While I'd love to go to the streets with a 1Dx, I can't afford it, and it has far more capability than I need or will ever need. The 5D3, like the Goldilocks porridge, is "just right" for me.

To me, the 5D3 is really most of a 1Dx for a lot less money.

Well put... there is no doubt Canon wants as much of our money as they can get.  I'm ok with that, it's business not personal.  Canon doesn't have to justify the price to anyone but shareholders.  And they will sell many many many 5D3 at this price.  If it's too much for someone, they can wait another 6-12 months until the first price reductions show up.  I'm not angry that I can't afford a Ferrari.

[timkbryant]

Personally, I do think the price is quite high.

BUT, I'm not a professional photog who can afford the latest and the greatest. I want this camera because it seems to me that it will be more than I need at the moment, but a wonderful tool to help my craft. Yes, I know the equipment doesn't make the photog, but it can't hurt.

I simply acknowledge I don't know any better to properly chastise Canon for offering up this tool to us at $3500. It is what it is for me, and I will have to live with it. Or not. No one is telling me I HAVE to buy it.

So while I wish this camera was $1000 cheaper, I choose to willingly bite the bullet and buy it. In a few months. When I have accumulated sufficient capital to do so.

[WoodysGamertag]

Well, I guess I could have picked "nothing" since I ordered it. However, if there is something I really with it had it would be slow motion video.  Maybe 120fps at 640x480?  I could do really great things with that.

[Blaze]

Canon obviously can't please everyone, but the 5DIII really is a massive step up from the 5DII.

• It now has a tougher, better sealed body (with optional matching quality built grip).
• HUGE improvement in auto-focus.
• Significant improvement in high ISO capability (on paper anyway)
• Much faster continuous shooting
• Tons of little improvements (screen, ergonomics, dual cards, viewfinder, HDR, etc.)

For my purposes, the specs are way more attractive than the D800. I have no need for 36 MP and the increased bother of dealing with larger files. Even with fast lenses, I'm very often pushing the limits of high ISO, so the 5DIII really wins there. 6 fps is just fast enough to shoot sports (although I'll miss the 8 fps on my 7D). The D800 only does 4 fps (you need a grip and crop mode to get 6 fps... very limiting).

For those that want MF resolution in a FF body for studio work, the D800E is probably more attractive. If this turns out to be a hot market, I'm sure Canon has something in development to compete with it.

As far as whether or not the price is "justified", that doesn't even seem like right question to ask. Are the improvements worth it to you? I'm guessing there's a huge demand for the 5DIII even at the current price point. If Canon can sell them at that price to willing customers, there's no reason they shouldn't. Remember, businesses are designed to make money. They might not even be able to match production to initial demand if priced sub-$3k.

Personally, I have no immediate need for the 5DII so I can afford to wait and see if the price comes down in the months to come and for reviews on sensor performance and real world testing to see whether or not it lives up to its specs on paper.

In my mind, it really is most of the good stuff from a 1DX in a smaller cheaper package. I would have loved for it to have 1080p @ 60 fps and 720p @ 120 fps video, a bit higher continuous shooting rate, the 1DX metering, and a $2500 price tag, but I realize Canon doesn't cater specifically to me and I can't always have exactly what I want at a price I can afford.

[Daniel Flather]

What would make 3.5k for 5DmIII justifiable for you?

No more 50D iso 1600.   

[AvTvM]

One thing I would like to point out is that Nikon likes to nickle and dime their customers.

hahahaha, I feel way more nickel and dimed by Canon, charging extra for things like simple lens hoods ... about the only manufacturer in the entire industry who does NOT include them with many lenses ... even when they cost 800+ Euro (eg. EF-S 17-55) - way more than some L- lenses (e.g,. 17-40, 70-200/4, ...). In addition it is often a real hassle to get hold of these freaking parts! Now thats NICKLE and DIME.

Or have you had a look at the prices for essential 5D III accessories?
Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT US: $629.99 / EUR: €699 / UK: £679.99
Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT US: $470 / EUR: €320 / UK: £309.99
Canon Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E7 US: $849.99 / EUR: €759 / UK: £789.99
Canon GPS Receiver GP-E2 US: $390 / EUR: €279 / UK: £299.99
Canon Battery Grip BG-E11 US: $490 / EUR: €380 / UK: £329.99

by the way, nickle and dime: the 600EX-RT sells for € 699,- the 600EX (without wireless remote) is listed for € 659 ,- ... so the  VALUE of the wireless remote part is what ... exactly: € 40,-  ... now generously double that, if it is a free-standing unit ... so how come, the ST-E3 does not cost € 80,- but € 320,-
That is "nickel and dime" at its very worst.   As a matter of fact, a monopolist-priced pocketwizard would cost less ... and with a range of 100m instead of 30 meters.

Canon has just gone bonkers with their 5D III plus related pricing. They wil get away with it for the first wave. But not for long. Thats for sure.   

[capertillar]

imo, specs are great. i just think canon is trying to take advantage of the hype and ppl who want it for the Olympics. I don't blame them for trying to make the extra buck from those willing to pay, but I also have to say it sucks for those of us who can't justify the price.

however, I do hope the price comes down to 3000 after the Olympics.. or at least by xmas...

[well_dunno]

My expectation was improved IQ, DR, ISO performance and AF. Now on paper, it has the improved ISO performance and AF in place. Mark 3 needs to really impress me with its IQ and DR for me to cough up 3.5K though... Will be awaiting reviews from production cameras to decide...

Cheers!

[benperrin]

I'll be buying a mkIII to compliment my mkII but not strait away. Maybe October or so. Looking at the example images on the Canon website I am very impressed with the noise at iso 3200 and would probably even start using iso 6400 if I really had to. All the other things like decreased shutter lag, way better af, improved dynamic range and 22mp are appealing to me. The only thing that I wish it had was 50 fps at 1080p or 100fps at 720p (I use PAL). If magic lantern can add this to the camera then I will definitely be very happy to purchase the mkIII.

[wickidwombat]

I wish you had put no AA filter as an option
but i chose full 1Dx AF

[meli]

OP here;
I do sense a defensive stance from some people that already preordered the camera or they're about to, and perhaps its my fault cause i should had clarify it a bit better.
There're a million good reasons to buy M3, the question of this thread is whether you feel that  the 500$ gap over the competition is justified, objectively and with the info we have so far.

[unfocused]

If it were hand delivered by Mila Kunis, Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie and then they decided to stay over for the weekend.

[wickidwombat]

Well, I guess I could have picked "nothing" since I ordered it. However, if there is something I really with it had it would be slow motion video.  Maybe 120fps at 640x480?  I could do really great things with that.

My fuji X10 can do that
actually i am pretty impressed with the video on that little puppy. super clean at 3200 iso
(disclaimer i really know very little about video at all and i only shot 1 vid on the x10 in HD)

[Meh]

If it were hand delivered by Mila Kunis, Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie and then they decided to stay over for the weekend.

Has to be all three or would just one suffice?

[meli]

While I plan to buy a 5d3 I don't see what "justifies" the price outside of aggressive business practice. For me, nothing added to it would change my feeling. I've priced products for markets, and I suspect if I had been Canon, I'd have chosen this price too. I priced aggressively. To us consumers, the $3500 seems a shock at first, but I suspect Canon's thinking takes into account:

1. A huge pent up demand that will create strong initial sales. No reason not to milk this and lower the price over time as demand slows -- if it does slow.

2. A sub-$3k price would probably have meant turnover of nearly the entire 5D2 populace, and I don't think they can produce at that level. So, you price a lot of people out at $3500 and give them a 5D2 alternative. That keeps demand at manageable levels that can match profit forecasts. In reality, both products can create images better than what 95% of users need.

So, "justified" doesn't work for me, but I think I understand their motives. We'll agree to disagree, I'll buy the product and we'll both go on our way.

I quoted Benny because that's pretty much my thinking -- as it was when I bought a T2i at half the price (or less) than a 7D two years ago. Obviously, you don't get close to the AF and speed of the 7D with a T2i, but for someone coming back into photography, it was an excellent first DSLR. It gave me a great Canon DSLR education, and I still contend it can take excellent pictures. It also gave me time to acquire some better lenses than I already had with the intent of moving up.

The 5D3 has as much of the 1Dx as I could reasonably need or want. While I'd love to go to the streets with a 1Dx, I can't afford it, and it has far more capability than I need or will ever need. The 5D3, like the Goldilocks porridge, is "just right" for me.

Sound argument, and of course, as Canon has the right to set their price wherever they feel like there's enough stock to milk, so the userbase has the right to judge them.
 I dont think that many will go: "Hey Canon's latest price policy is retarded but hey they just do it cause they want to milk users so its ok!"

actually this might be my main gripe with Canon, I think they feel way too comfortable with their userbase