I find early adopters without the proper risk taking temperament are the root cause of most the problems here.
I must admit this one is very true of me. I am not keen on being an early adopter. Knowing how anticipated the 5d3 was by so many I preordered to make sure I got one before the summer when I am going on a great trip that I really want to be upgraded in time for. I didnt want to be looking at the shots from that trip later this year, the duds and even the better shots wishing that I'd gotten my 5d3 in time.
I have learned early adoption is not for me. Too stressful with too many added variables. Youve just spent a lot of money on this new piece of kit that you want use for years to come and find that your first few shots are not sharp. Is it you, is the new kit lens, is the camera? You dont want to just slam out shot after shot to get used to the camera because you need to take under 200 shots to return it.
Some of the hysteria, that I admit to having partaken in when I should have known better, is seeded in the issue with people who dont usually use DPP having to use it because their usual software for organising images (Lightroom or Aperture) cant read the files. This combined with the fact the jpgs are a bit weird looking to a lot of people because of the amount of NR turns peoples attention to the camera.
Once the issue with DPP was highlighted and people were able to use ACR 6.7 to get atbthe RAW files the issue is resolved but the damage is done...
The seeds of doubt were sown with a lot of people... Its hard to shake that first impression even though it turns out the camera was not at fault.
What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.
Are you one of the people who downloaded the rather dull and uninteresting RAW files I posted yesterday of a house? If so, I apologise.
I wasnt going anywhere interesting to actually take good shots but I knew people were asking about RAW shots of outdoor scenes so I hastily posted a few of my own "crappy composition, worthless lighting" test shots so anybody interested in looking at 5d3 RAW files could. Again I should have know better. I deleted the post a few hours later.
I find a lot of the problems with scenic images most people post on the web to say "look at this stunning shot with camera x" are pointless, they are just showing the photographers composition skills and a pretty scene he took his new camera to. When you reduce the full image to 800 pix wide you arent showing the capability of the camera at all. A shot with many cell phone held steadily at the same scene would look great reduced that small.
I wonder what the reception would have been if it was priced $1,000 cheaper?
I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.
For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.