5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance

[smirkypants]

If you have any examples of direct comparison, that would be great...

Direct comparisons? You mean shoot this scene, put the one camera down, shoot the same scene with a different camera? I'm afraid that would be impossible. If you don't want direct comparisons, the internet is littered with shots from a 1D4/400mm combination sports shots and there are a number on my web site.

And sure, I'm willing to admit that part of my glee is due to the lens, but I also temporarily shot with a d7000 and wasn't nearly as smitten. I was going to get a D4, but full frame 16.2MP just wasn't going to cut it. I used to shoot important events with a 1D4/400 on a tripod and a 7D/70-200 f2.8 II on my shoulder for when the action got close. Now I'm hand-holding everything with just one camera and getting great shots.

Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!

Plus this lens still doesn't exist... and neither does the camera. Some will say "nobody pays full MSRP for lenses." Well, yes they do. In the first year or so when they come out, the big lenses sell at full price, if you can even find them. The 400/2.8 II is still $11,500 at B&H and Adorama, despite being out for some time. It may come down in a while but how long do I wait. Until 2014?

I'm not crazy. I'm not needlessly berating Canon with my shrill hysterics. Others will do what I have done. Many others.

[iso79]

[simonxu11]

Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.

Not at all.  If you read the original post price is not the issue here.  The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package.  Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious.  Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.

Can't agree more, well said!!
You can always easily find there's something has been crippled by Canon in the 5D series and lower end model compare to what Nikon is offering.

[jrista]

Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!

You are really skewing things here. The D800 definitely has something to offer, but your talking about photographing action here. Unless you seriously don't think 4fps FF or 5fps crop mode is not an issue, there is a HUGE difference between those frame rates and the 10 of the 1D IV. Your going to be missing out on a lot of incredible moments because your at HALF the frame rate or less as the 1D IV, and just from a numbers game your keepers are going to shrink on volume. You also have to remember that the D800 is moving a LOT of data around most of the time, and while it has a large buffer, once it is full, it takes a long time to empty onto your memory card. That will create lag that you just simply can't speed up, potentially causing you missed shots. That is the very reason high frame rate cameras exist, and you can't say that the D800's improved resolution or DR is enough to offset that.

You also have to remember that the 1D IV is designed to AF at f/8, so dropping in a 1.4x TC and shooting at f/5.6 is a no-brainer. You don't lose that much DOF when doing so, and you definitely gain reach. Full-frame, full detail, no-cropping reach, which is also nothing to shake a stick at...as its still higher resolution overall than using DX crop mode on the D800 (which is 15mp.) Yes, the D800 is a great camera, but the 1D IV is still a far superior action photographers tool, even at f/5.6/

[Louis]

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.

So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.

love what you wrote and totally agree

[Stu_bert]

If you have any examples of direct comparison, that would be great...

Direct comparisons? You mean shoot this scene, put the one camera down, shoot the same scene with a different camera? I'm afraid that would be impossible. If you don't want direct comparisons, the internet is littered with shots from a 1D4/400mm combination sports shots and there are a number on my web site.

Yup, outside your professional shooting, I just assumed you had maybe done some comparison - not during the polo games and the like  The 27MP effective of the 1D vs the 25MP crop of the D800 both at 400mm would be interesting, but I appreciate that is being cheeky!!

And sure, I'm willing to admit that part of my glee is due to the lens, but I also temporarily shot with a d7000 and wasn't nearly as smitten. I was going to get a D4, but full frame 16.2MP just wasn't going to cut it. I used to shoot important events with a 1D4/400 on a tripod and a 7D/70-200 f2.8 II on my shoulder for when the action got close. Now I'm hand-holding everything with just one camera and getting great shots.

Indeed, so it is not more the lens and not the camera? Handholding the 400mm would be difficult, hence your use of a tripod and the inflexibility that comes with that. Handholding the 200-400mm I would guess is a little more difficult than the 70-200, plus the extra MP is a little more unforgiving. Don't get me wrong, I am only trying to understand, not trying to critique. Your money, your job, your decision. 

Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!

Plus this lens still doesn't exist... and neither does the camera. Some will say "nobody pays full MSRP for lenses." Well, yes they do. In the first year or so when they come out, the big lenses sell at full price, if you can even find them. The 400/2.8 II is still $11,500 at B&H and Adorama, despite being out for some time. It may come down in a while but how long do I wait. Until 2014?

I'm not crazy. I'm not needlessly berating Canon with my shrill hysterics. Others will do what I have done. Many others.

As per my original post, Andy Biggs & Andy Rouse are 2 big names in wildlife who swapped from Canon based on the 200-400mm and the AF of the series III I believe. So yes, the specific combination of lens & a good Nikon body is what made it for you. And I have considered it myself....

But, and I appreciate it is subjective and somewhat emotive, other than the 36MP and the flexibility of the 200-400mm lens, what's your initial impression of the differences between the two? Handling, AF, ISO etc? Not looking to bate you or anyone else, just interested in your feedback.... thanks

[briansquibb]

I dont understand the logic of smirkypants

He has a 1D4 with a 1.3 crop plus the 400 f/2.8 and he says that he couldn't get the same shot as the ff D800 at 1.2 which he then had to crop more.

I would have thought the Canon option would given pretty much the same print options with the same FOV the same picture. Of course if he had the lighter 500 f/4 he would not had a significant crop at all.

I think that option would cost less than the D800 + 200-400?

[AprilForever]

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).
 
Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end.

And make no mistake. Only time will tell, but if Nikon does manage to overthrow Canon this time around, we will have the same exact conversation, only in reverse, in 3-4 years.

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment:  still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market.  This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

I kind of feel the same way, I think... Frankly, if the 7D MK II didn't even know what the word video meant, I wouldn't drop a tear. Mash all the computing, buttons, and other what not together into a powerfuller photo-centric camera. Leave the video to video people. Give me a camera which was meant to be a camera, not a cini-duhickey!

[DavidRiesenberg]

Not at all.  If you read the original post price is not the issue here.  The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package.  Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious.  Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.

In the end, the market will decide the future. If Canon's sales will fall to Nikon, then in 3-4 years we will see the same situation in reverse. Not that I mind. I love my 5D3 and it offers me all that I need and more in a camera body but who am I to complain if Canon will have to do even better?

[jrista]

Not at all.  If you read the original post price is not the issue here.  The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package.  Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious.  Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.

In the end, the market will decide the future. If Canon's sales will fall to Nikon, then in 3-4 years we will see the same situation in reverse. Not that I mind. I love my 5D3 and it offers me all that I need and more in a camera body but who am I to complain if Canon will have to do even better?

I'm not sure that will happen, even if it "should". I've read a few things on other forums about Nikon having supply problems. That seems to have been one of Nikon's historical failings, and may be even more exacerbated these days with all the natural disasters they faced last year. I've heard numbers thrown around a few times about sales numbers from "the big stores" like B&H indicating Canon's 5D III is selling 25 times more than the D800...but not necessarily because people don't want the D800. They just aren't available for all the people who want them, where as the 5D III is. Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

If the trend continues, and Canon meets demand where as Nikon doesn't, sales numbers won't affect Canon's opinions much.

[V8Beast]

Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you  really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now. 

[Tcapp]

Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you  really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now.

That is why I'm a canon photographer right now. I used to shoot with a D90 when I first got started. I was going to upgrade to a D3s when it came out, but there was so little supply that I couldn't get my hands on it so i went with the 5d2. Now I'm so invested in lenses that I'm probably going to be using canon for life. I MAY eventually use both at some point if Nikon continues to increase DR and MP, just so I can have that functionality when needed, but for events and weddings, my Canon 5d3 is just great, as I'm sure any future canon camera will be as well.

For personal, non paid photos, I dont see myself ever needing or even wanting a monster megapixle camera.

[jrista]

Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you  really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now.

Yeah, I'd figure replacement parts are pretty low on Canon's list of priorities.

[jrista]

Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you  really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now.

That is why I'm a canon photographer right now. I used to shoot with a D90 when I first got started. I was going to upgrade to a D3s when it came out, but there was so little supply that I couldn't get my hands on it so i went with the 5d2. Now I'm so invested in lenses that I'm probably going to be using canon for life. I MAY eventually use both at some point if Nikon continues to increase DR and MP, just so I can have that functionality when needed, but for events and weddings, my Canon 5d3 is just great, as I'm sure any future canon camera will be as well.

For personal, non paid photos, I dont see myself ever needing or even wanting a monster megapixle camera.

Yeah, even despite the slightly lacking DR on the 5D III, it definitely sounds like a vastly superior wedding camera. I think wedding photogs were one of the two or maybe three primary groups of photographers they REALLY listened to when designing the 5D III.

[Tcapp]

Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you  really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now.

That is why I'm a canon photographer right now. I used to shoot with a D90 when I first got started. I was going to upgrade to a D3s when it came out, but there was so little supply that I couldn't get my hands on it so i went with the 5d2. Now I'm so invested in lenses that I'm probably going to be using canon for life. I MAY eventually use both at some point if Nikon continues to increase DR and MP, just so I can have that functionality when needed, but for events and weddings, my Canon 5d3 is just great, as I'm sure any future canon camera will be as well.

For personal, non paid photos, I dont see myself ever needing or even wanting a monster megapixle camera.

Yeah, even despite the slightly lacking DR on the 5D III, it definitely sounds like a vastly superior wedding camera. I think wedding photogs were one of the two or maybe three primary groups of photographers they REALLY listened to when designing the 5D III.

And as a wedding photog, I am very thankful.

Something people don't take into account when viewing things like DxO mark is that for something like weddings, its not ALL about maximum image quality. Workflow has a bigger impact on profits than image quality from a camera (when all the latest cameras are so great). Clients don't know what color banding is. 5d3 workflow is MUCH faster than d800 workflow, and I don't think even nikon fanboys can deny that. So from where im sitting, canon can make me a more profitable business than nikon can. And thats what its really all about folks. Money makes the world go round. If you don't care about money, go shoot your kids birthday party with a hasselblad.

Yay for logic!