Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

[K-amps]

But it will be. Just give it time.

Yes but no use giving the patient medication 12 hours after he is dead... unless you are ok with living with 3 year old tech...

 

[krjc]

What was the original sales price of the 5D2 adjusted for inflation. I don't think there is much of a difference with the 5D3. We live in a market economy nobody forces you to buy anything. Complaining here doesn't do squat.

I bought a 5D3 and have been enjoying it immensely. It has given me many hours of enjoyment along with getting some great photos I couldn't of gotten with my 7D. Well worth every penny.

If I had an equivalent Nikon I'm sure I would be almost as happy. If I was heavy into landscapes sure the 800 is better, but I'm into sports, and low light, so I have the camera for me.

 

[ishdakuteb]

forgot to post this one up also... more information to compare...

 

[NormanBates]

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

 

[ishdakuteb]

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

now, i am interested in your comparision about 5d mark III and nikon d800. please help me to break down so that i can learn about:

1. 5d mark iii does not complete what from upgrading 5d mark ii
2. d800 complete what from upgrading d700?

please give little more details (and keep in mind that you are speaking for the whole)...

 

[Zlatko]

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

Right, it does have to compete against the D800, which was priced lower at introduction. Happily, the 5D3 price is coming down.

However, the question of a "better sensor" depends on the intended use and the preferences of the user. I prefer Canon color for photos of people, so the 5D3 has the better sensor for me. If I were a landscape photographer, I'd probably favor the D800 sensor.

And other important factors come into the equation. Without a smaller Raw file format and without a super-quiet shutter mode and without Canon ergonomics and certain Canon lenses and the Canon radio-controlled flash, the D800 is less attractive for me, and therefor less competitive even at a lower price. For these reasons, the 5D3 competes very well for some photographers, whether priced the same as the D800 or higher. It comes down to the needs and preferences of the photographer.

So there are multiple factors, some of which have greater importance to certain photographers; DR is just one of them. Back when Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera or any camera with excellent high ISO performance, some photographers still preferred Nikon because other factors were more important to them. This is why reducing camera competitiveness to just one or two factors and a price doesn't work.

There are obviously many photographers for whom the D800 will be a better fit and likewise many for whom the 5D3 will be a better fit, notwithstanding any price differences. It's apparent that Canon and Nikon intentionally design at least some of their products with somewhat different buyers in mind (with a good deal of overlap, of course) — this way they don't have to compete strictly on price.

 

[pwp]

How about "A reasonable price"? :

Plenty of people have picked them up brand new for under $3k and as low as $2700-$2800, I think that's incredibly reasonable, about the same as the 5D2 was. I paid almost $3800 for mine after tax and I still think it's a great camera, although I wish it hadn't dropped in price that quickly.

I think the 5D3 is great value. I paid $3500 in the full expectation that a few months later the price would be under $3000 but that's a few months without this brilliant camera. Hell, it's about the same price as I paid for my 5D Classic in late 2005. It's way less than the $14,500 I paid for the original 1Ds in 2003. From a business viewpoint the ROI period is shrinking all the time. And each new generation of camera smashes the previous ones in almost all respects.

Get real! There's little to complain about.

-PW

 

[pwp]

There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.

-PW

 

[robbymack]

Who knew this would degrade into the 5diii d800 flame war. I honestly don't think they are competitors in anything other than relative price point. Actually I love the 5diii would have paid more for it because I see it as a Nikon d4 at half the price. So canon made in my opinion the best event/all around ff camera. Nikon on the other has made the best 35mm landscape camera that approaches Mf quality. Different strokes for different folks. If I was an event shooter with Nikon I would laugh at the idea of switching to the d800, if I was a landscaper I'd consider it unless of course I had a couple of TS E lenses then I'd be happy with any canon body.

 

[Zlatko]

There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.

-PW

I agree! That's one detail I wish they would improve/fix about the 5D3. It is strange that this was overlooked.

Who knew this would degrade into the 5diii d800 flame war. I honestly don't think they are competitors in anything other than relative price point. Actually I love the 5diii would have paid more for it because I see it as a Nikon d4 at half the price. So canon made in my opinion the best event/all around ff camera. Nikon on the other has made the best 35mm landscape camera that approaches Mf quality. Different strokes for different folks. If I was an event shooter with Nikon I would laugh at the idea of switching to the d800, if I was a landscaper I'd consider it unless of course I had a couple of TS E lenses then I'd be happy with any canon body.

Very good points! They have different strengths, so they don't compete strictly on price.

 

[Z]

There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.

-PW

If it's any consolation I wrote about that in one of the free text boxes, and I bet I'm not the only one.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

Back to this again...the d800 has a great sensor for studio work and landscapes... the mk3 has a great sensor for wedding, events and sports. Can the mk3 do work in the studio? You betcha. Can the mk3 shoot landscapes? You betcha, can the D800 shoot sports, events, weddings...for sure it can. But is that where it is strongest? No for both. The mk3 is competing with the mk3 in a certain sense, but not really in the overall - each body specializes in one area of photography.

I have many friends here i nthe wedding business, both nikon and canon shooters --- and by and large whenever a nikon user asks other nikon users what they would choose if they wanted to upgrade to FF for weddings, they get told - d700, d3, d3s, or d4 if the budget is big enough. Even the ones that have a d800 admit that at a wedding it doesn't come out of the bag. Many mention the d700 cause its good in low light and has reasonable file sizes. These aren't my words, they are the words of nikon users!!!!

I agree with you that the mk3 is not competing in price with the mk2, that would be silly because the mk3 is much improved over the mk2.

And finally, at least looking at the amazon top seller list, the mk3 is currently at 13th on the list, with the d600 at the 12th spot and the d800 at the 16th spot ---and oddly enough the mk2 at the 10th spot. If this is similar to whats happening at the other dealers then the mk3 is handling itself quite well...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

Right, it does have to compete against the D800, which was priced lower at introduction. Happily, the 5D3 price is coming down.

However, the question of a "better sensor" depends on the intended use and the preferences of the user. I prefer Canon color for photos of people, so the 5D3 has the better sensor for me. If I were a landscape photographer, I'd probably favor the D800 sensor.

And other important factors come into the equation. Without a smaller Raw file format and without a super-quiet shutter mode and without Canon ergonomics and certain Canon lenses and the Canon radio-controlled flash, the D800 is less attractive for me, and therefor less competitive even at a lower price. For these reasons, the 5D3 competes very well for some photographers, whether priced the same as the D800 or higher. It comes down to the needs and preferences of the photographer.

So there are multiple factors, some of which have greater importance to certain photographers; DR is just one of them. Back when Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera or any camera with excellent high ISO performance, some photographers still preferred Nikon because other factors were more important to them. This is why reducing camera competitiveness to just one or two factors and a price doesn't work.

There are obviously many photographers for whom the D800 will be a better fit and likewise many for whom the 5D3 will be a better fit, notwithstanding any price differences. It's apparent that Canon and Nikon intentionally design at least some of their products with somewhat different buyers in mind (with a good deal of overlap, of course) — this way they don't have to compete strictly on price.

+1 ...others have said it so I'll repeat it...why are we so dogmatic about this that we can't just use 2 systems if the needs for both are that great? I shoot weddings, portraits and events as my bread and butter...but I do also shoot landscapes and cityscapes and urban decay, etc, etc too. If demand for my art were to get to a point where I could live off of it, then yeah I would seriously consider picking up a d800. But, right now for me the service end is more lucrative - and yeah, the 5d3 is the better camera for that kind of work.