D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

[V8Beast]

There's nothing revolutionary in the 5D3. It's a very safe, very conservative camera. Having owned one for a couple of weeks, it really does feel almost exactly like owning a 7D with better IQ. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Canon needs to learn to push the envelope and to exceed expectations.

I agree that the 5DIII isn't revolutionary, but the 5DII wasn't either. All it offered over the 5DC was an extra stop of DR and ISO, and 9 more megapixels. Other than the resolution, those are incremental upgrades at best. The 5DII looked good on paper because of the resolution jump, but if you had a 5DC and were happy with the resolution, it wasn't much of an upgrade at all. The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII. IMHO, the MKII was a less revolutionary jump over the 5DC than the MKIII compared to the MKII. The MKII's video seemed more like a happy accident, and since we're talking about stills, I don't find it that relevant to this discussion.

I'm sure there are lots of happy 5DII users who won't find the 5DIII a compelling enough of an upgrade. However, that will be offset by all the 5DC users who didn't think the 5DII was worth the money, and will now be upgrading to the 5DIII.

One of the publishing companies I work for uses 5DC's as the standard issue body for their staff photogs, and never upgraded to the 5DII for the reasons outlined above. Once they upgrade to the MKIII, they will be ordering up a $h!t ton of bodies in one fell swoop. Canon cares more about that than online geeks whose knowledge of sensors technology far exceed their talent

It's really quite simple. If a new camera doesn't have the feature set to justify its cost, either wait until the next generation or buy a camera from a competing manufacturer that makes what you need. That's not directed at you personally, since you've already purchased the best tool for your needs, the D800.

 

[t.linn]

I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.

I appreciate your thoughts on this. (Not just the quoted section but all of it.) Having said that, I have to disagree with you when you talk about wasted dynamic range and its limited value with certain media. I can understand that for someone who doesn't like to post process images, having more post-processing flexibility is not that exciting. But for me, that increased dynamic range is a hugely useful tool regardless of the final medium—monitor or print.

Having the ability to pull clean detail out of shadows doesn't mean you have to use it. But having the option is extraordinarily useful. We already adjust the appearance of our images with levels and curves to match (i.e., tone map) the dynamic range of the image to whatever medium it will be displayed on. Greater DR just provides more flexibility to do so. And having greater DR capabilities on a sensor doesn't necessarily mean the image has to look any different coming out of the camera.

You mentioned bird photography. I would use this as an example. I was out in the desert photographing sage-grouse a couple weekends ago. http://blog.tlinn.com/2012/04/sage-grouse/ I wanted it bright and sunny at sunrise to capture the tail feathers glowing with light. But I also wanted to be able to pull out details from the shadows so that the tail feathers didn't look like they were attached to a black blob. There is no question that the ability to do this will benefit my images on screen and in print.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

The rest of the new features? Modest software changes. A slightly updated processing chip, which should cost less to make. A few more AF points - technology which Canon perfected 15 years ago and can be added to any camera at essentially zero cost. In other words, a non upgrade.

I compare the 5MkII/III to the old Canon EOS 3 in terms of build quality and non-digital features. Rugged, a step below the top line, spot metering and lots of AF points. That camera sold for about $800 new. Drop the analog guts - film transport, etc - and you're left with say $500 worth of camera.

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen.

The 5mk3 is a bad deal and a pointless upgrade.

I don't think anyone who has a significant investment in L glass will be walking away from Canon anytime soon. I won't. But I will skip the MkIII and wait to see what they do next. Now if Canon blows it again in 2013 and 2014, then I'll switch.

 

[t.linn]

Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D

The reason I posed my question is because Canon officials have said on several occasions that they will be watching the market response to higher megapixel DSLRs before deciding how to respond. It would be unfortunate if they interpreted the positive response to the D800 as a positive response to resolution rather than image quality—and DR in particular.

 

[Tcapp]

I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

The rest of the new features? Modest software changes. A slightly updated processing chip, which should cost less to make. A few more AF points - technology which Canon perfected 15 years ago and can be added to any camera at essentially zero cost. In other words, a non upgrade.

I compare the 5MkII/III to the old Canon EOS 3 in terms of build quality and non-digital features. Rugged, a step below the top line, spot metering and lots of AF points. That camera sold for about $800 new. Drop the analog guts - film transport, etc - and you're left with say $500 worth of camera.

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen.

The 5mk3 is a bad deal and a pointless upgrade.

I don't think anyone who has a significant investment in L glass will be walking away from Canon anytime soon. I won't. But I will skip the MkIII and wait to see what they do next. Now if Canon blows it again in 2013 and 2014, then I'll switch.

I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.

Just my feeling.

 

[Loswr]

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

But somehow, it's ok for Nikon to raise the price $900 for just more MP (compared to Canon, who reduced the price of the 5DII compared to the 5D)?

Ok, no double standard there, at all.

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen

Since when is the D800 only $2500? Also, why does everyone insist on thinking that the cost of materials in a product means bugger all in terms of the retail pricing?!? The D800E is the D800 with something (part of the AA filter) taken away, why is it $300 more? The 1D C is the 1D X with some minor additional hardware for better cooling and a different firmware - why is it twice the price? Production costs are not the main determinant in product price. The price is set based primarily on what the market will bear, adjusted for the estimated sales volume and taking into account recovery of amortized R&D costs.

 

[Abraxx]

...things I would like to see on a next generation 5D, without changing form factor or remove functions of the current 5D3:

- include flash, for highlighting

Please, no! I understand the occasional utility of a popup flash for fill, etc. But in fact, the popup flash does change the form factor - that protruding bulge makes it very challenging to make adjustments on TS-E lenses.
:-\
Here's a YouTube video where at ~0:55 s you can see the shift knob on their 24mm PC-E lens hitting the protrusion of the popup flash, preventing the lens from being rotated into the desired position:

Nikon D800 and Nikon PC-E 24mm.mov

Without changing form factor, I meant specifically that too. I don't see a reason, why it shouldn't be possible to add a poppy uppy flash and still use a TS, like now. But then I could trigger flashes and highlight quickly too...

But I agree, using a TS is a nice advantage, more important than a flash, even if I unfortunately do not own a TS... :-\

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen

Since when is the D800 only $2500? Also, why does everyone insist on thinking that the cost of materials in a product means bugger all in terms of the retail pricing?!?

I think that I was not clear. I was referring to the retail price of the "digital guts". Based on a Canon film body of similar build quality, I estimated the retail price for the non-digital parts to be $500. Thus, if the camera retails for $3500, then the sensor digital contribution to the price is $3000. And since software and chip speed improvements are essentially zero cost upgrades (Moore's Law), this $3000 is all sensor.

True, the retail cost somewhat independent of manufacturing cost, but we can use past pricing trends to estimate how much of a digital premium Canon is charging for a camera a particular build quality. In this case, $3000.

No, that's not what it costs Canon, but it is what Canon is charging us for the technology. I don't think it is worth it, given that it is insignificant improvement over the previous generation.

Nikon, on the other hand, is packing a lot more value into its digital premium ($3000-$500=$2500).

 

[awinphoto]

I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

The rest of the new features? Modest software changes. A slightly updated processing chip, which should cost less to make. A few more AF points - technology which Canon perfected 15 years ago and can be added to any camera at essentially zero cost. In other words, a non upgrade.

I compare the 5MkII/III to the old Canon EOS 3 in terms of build quality and non-digital features. Rugged, a step below the top line, spot metering and lots of AF points. That camera sold for about $800 new. Drop the analog guts - film transport, etc - and you're left with say $500 worth of camera.

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen.

The 5mk3 is a bad deal and a pointless upgrade.

I don't think anyone who has a significant investment in L glass will be walking away from Canon anytime soon. I won't. But I will skip the MkIII and wait to see what they do next. Now if Canon blows it again in 2013 and 2014, then I'll switch.

61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weathersealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not... The 5d3 bests the 5d2 in almost every situation, every spec, every thing... guys... other than the sensor, what did the nikon D800 IMPROVE over the D700... not much. same body, same AF, lower burst, same ISO, etc... The D800 is a fine camera but lets not get over ourselves here... The D800 isn't going to make you a better photographer over owning a 5d3 and surely the $500 difference will get eaten up in lost production learning the new camera, extra cost in lenses, etc... When the 5d2 came out, photographers on forums bashed it compared to the D700... "all canon is doing is pushing MP, we dont need MP", the D700 AF this, the D700 AF that, burst rate, etc... canon gave us everything we asked for and then some, people still are griping... Some people will never appreciate what they have, what a sad reality we live in.

Aglet, regarding your multi brand system you are referring to... you got to understand by being professional, it's a business, it's a career, it's our livelihood. There are some pro's who switching systems is as easy as making a few phone calls, and sending an assistant or runner to pick up your new gear... others a big switch like that gone bad could be enough to crush their business. As far as having 2 or more brands, your talking about 2 lots of cameras, 2 lots of lenses, flashes, cords, styles, etc... Some can do it, some cant. I'm a pro and make 100% of my income on my photography and still a $3500 purchase is still a big deal for someone like me, let alone the thought of adding a $3000 D800, dont forget wide, normal, tele, you can easily get into $7000 easy with those base setup, and unless that $7000 can pay for itself in 1 month, it's just not that worth it... That's a lot of capital to undertake just to have multiple brands. Dont forget extra insurance, extra maintenance, extra book keeping, training, cases, etc... That's a lot of freaking money. In the end it's got to A) pay for itself in a matter of weeks and B) do something my current gear cannot... and sorry, the D800 nor canon can claim to do either at this juncture, for me. Financially it doesn't make sense. Maybe in a few years when my pics get published on Times magazine or such and i'm rolling in the dough, maybe i'll feel different then, but i doubt it.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.

True. But there's no business sense in spending the $500 more if it offers no improvement. I can a MkII, or postpone replacement. Now if it offered all the perks of the D800 (if the reviews are to be believed, I'd almost never need to rent medium format gear) then yes, it would make good business sense to run out and buy it.

 

[Loswr]

I think that I was not clear. I was referring to the retail price of the "digital guts". Based on a Canon film body of similar build quality, I estimated the retail price for the non-digital parts to be $500. Thus, if the camera retails for $3500, then the sensor digital contribution to the price is $3000. And since software and chip speed improvements are essentially zero cost upgrades (Moore's Law), this $3000 is all sensor.

True, the retail cost somewhat independent of manufacturing cost, but we can use past pricing trends to estimate how much of a digital premium Canon is charging for a camera a particular build quality. In this case, $3000.

No, that's not what it costs Canon, but it is what Canon is charging us for the technology. I don't think it is worth it, given that it is insignificant improvement over the previous generation.

Nikon, on the other hand, is packing a lot more value into its digital premium ($3000-$500=$2500).

Wow, there are just so many misassumptions there that I'm not even sure where to begin. You don't, by any chance, do cost analyses for the US government, do you?

 

[V8Beast]

Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D

So is the assumption that since Canon addressed the 5DII's poor AF, it was based on feedback from message boards? I'm not saying opinions voiced on message boards don't matter, but Canon has far more sophisticated methods of conducting market research. The online crowd, whether it's quilting forum or a photography forum, tends to be quite fanatical and dramatic, and has a knack of blowing things out of proportion

 

[Loswr]

The 5d3 bests the 5d2 in almost every situation, every spec, every thing... guys... other than the sensor, what did the nikon D800 IMPROVE over the D700... not much. same body, same AF, lower burst, same ISO, etc... The D800 is a fine camera but lets not get over ourselves here...

+1. The D700 → D800 update is very analogous to the 5D → 5DII update - more MP and not much else. The 5DII → 5DIII update is a much broader, more significant update to the line - about the only thing that didn't change was the MP count.

The online crowd...tends to be quite fanatical and dramatic, and has a knack of blowing things out of proportion

WTF?!? Fanatical? GTFO! Dramatic?!? You don't know what the f___ you're talking about. Get off these boards if you can't approach things in a civil, calm, and non-sarcastic manner.

</sarcasm>, just in case that wasn't clear to someone...

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weather sealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not...

That's all 15 year old Canon technology. Even my EOS 3 had 45 AF points, weather sealing and 97% VF.

At this point in manufacturing, those upgrades cost nothing.

From Wikipedia:
"The EOS-3 introduced the 45-point autofocus system later used in the EOS-1v, EOS-1D and subsequent Canon professional SLRs. It was the last camera outside the 1-series, either film or digital, to receive Canon's top-of-the-line AF system until the March 2012 announcement of the EOS 5D Mark III.[2]"

 

[awinphoto]

I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.

True. But there's no business sense in spending the $500 more if it offers no improvement. I can a MkII, or postpone replacement. Now if it offered all the perks of the D800 (if the reviews are to be believed, I'd almost never need to rent medium format gear) then yes, it would make good business sense to run out and buy it.

Over the 5d2, the 5d3 is a huge improvement in almost every category, it's not even close. Compared to the D800, it's really too close to call for anything but the DR, which by ISO 800 is an edge Canon. Anywho, for my business I cant afford not to get this camera over the 5d2, which as a body as a whole, was horrid.

 

[awinphoto]

61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weather sealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not...

That's all 15 year old Canon technology. Even my EOS 3 had 45 AF points, weather sealing and 97% VF.

At this point in manufacturing, those upgrades cost nothing.

From Wikipedia:
"The EOS-3 introduced the 45-point autofocus system later used in the EOS-1v, EOS-1D and subsequent Canon professional SLRs. It was the last camera outside the 1-series, either film or digital, to receive Canon's top-of-the-line AF system until the March 2012 announcement of the EOS 5D Mark III.[2]"

The 5d3 is a huge imrpovement over the 5d2 compared to the D800 over the D700... If i was a D700 i'd be more furious about the D800 lack of improvements than a 5d2 user with the 5d3... but it's simple... dont like it, dont buy it... why on earth do i even bother with CR at times?

 

[Tcapp]

I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.

True. But there's no business sense in spending the $500 more if it offers no improvement. I can a MkII, or postpone replacement. Now if it offered all the perks of the D800 (if the reviews are to be believed, I'd almost never need to rent medium format gear) then yes, it would make good business sense to run out and buy it.

Over the 5d2, the 5d3 is a huge improvement in almost every category, it's not even close. Compared to the D800, it's really too close to call for anything but the DR, which by ISO 800 is an edge Canon. Anywho, for my business I cant afford not to get this camera over the 5d2, which as a body as a whole, was horrid.

+1 exactly

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade."

Have to disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's PoV. Canon's deceptive claims ("2-stop improvement") aside, IQ wasn't broke on the 5DII, and it didn't need fixing. AF was pretty sad, and combining the 5DII's IQ with the 1-series AF system is more than merely 'nice' IMO.

When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D

The reason I posed my question is because Canon officials have said on several occasions that they will be watching the market response to higher megapixel DSLRs before deciding how to respond. It would be unfortunate if they interpreted the positive response to the D800 as a positive response to resolution rather than image quality—and DR in particular.

A it worrisome is the guy who has some in with Canon seemed to give the impression that all they see is MP and they don't get the dynamic range bit at all. And that they could drop a 45MP camera with the same poor DR and 2-3fps and no crop modes like the D800 for speed and think it would be the most awesome thing ever just because it has 9 more MP than the D800 even though it would get creamed for dynamic range and fps.

As far back as maybe 2006 or 2007 supposedly an external division of Canon sent over some dynamic range improvement tech to see if the Japanese DSLR unit wanted to patent it and use it for cameras and apparently Canon marketing/production heads got it and were like what the heck is this? why do we want this? get lost and that was that. Supposedly they never even showed it to the Canon DSLR engineers!

I also recall some Canon guy a trade show telling the press that Canon had no plans for a faster FF since they had no need to do anything at all, they were years ahead of Nikon and could sit and rest on their laurels and that Nikon would be lucky to introduce any FF sensor, nevermind a good one for years if not more than a decade. As soon as I heard talk like that I got really worried about Canon. They sounded way too high on their own early DSLR success and too complacent and all the talk about no need to do anything, just sit still and milk products, etc. it sounded like a company ready for a fall. Not that they are falling but it is kinda ironic that Nikon came out with FF I believe less than a year later and that now like only half a decade later they have a much better FF sensor than anything Canon has ever produced.

All that said, other than the sensor's performance for some criteria, the 5D3 does sound pretty awesome (of course the sensor is a pretty important bit and the zero improvement for low iso stuff I do think took many a Canon shooter by shock).

 

[Loswr]

Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade."

Have to disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's PoV. Canon's deceptive claims ("2-stop improvement") aside, IQ wasn't broke on the 5DII, and it didn't need fixing. AF was pretty sad, and combining the 5DII's IQ with the 1-series AF system is more than merely 'nice' IMO.

When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.

PoV again. A 2012 Ferrari FF has a top speed of 208 mph. My car has a top speed of 116 mph. I will probably never drive faster than 85 mph. So...does my car need 'fixing'?

Usable? So what if you have no use for them. DR isn't the be-all-end-all for everyone, although it clearly seems to be your hobby-horse. Ride on...