Follow-up poll: If you're not buying a 5D3 due to price....

[AvTvM]

So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.

not surprising to me ... the 5D 3 is too expensive for what it is .. unless you earn money with it and have enough money to start with.

 

[briansquibb]

So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.

not surprising to me ... the 5D 3 is too expensive for what it is .. unless you earn money with it and have enough money to start with.

That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros

 

[Random Orbits]

So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.

not surprising to me ... the 5D 3 is too expensive for what it is .. unless you earn money with it and have enough money to start with.

That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros

I guess that's the next poll...

 

[AvTvM]

That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros

Of course non-pros will buy as well. But the pool of pure hobbyists willing and able to plonk down 3.5k for a body alone is limited ... especially if a better camera is available for 2.8k from the competition.

Pro's are often somewhat more "looked in" by sizeable investments in glass, speedlites etc. and with regards to the cost of a major change in their workflow. SO to them 3.5k vs. 2.8k is a comparatively smaller issue.

 

[JerryB]

I was lucky. A friend sold me his for 3100. It's an expensive camera. I also own a 5dm2 which I'm keeping. It takes great photos. As a photojournalist, I need a second camera. If I didn't need the faster focus and the low light, I would not have bought it. A salesman once told me that Canon likes the higher prices as a way to separate "pro" photographers form amateurs, U don't know if that is true but you do have to wonder. I was luck to find a deal; otherwise, I would have purchased another 5dm2.

 

[crasher8]

I just voted, did that take away or add to this poll's suckiness?

 

[briansquibb]

That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros

Of course non-pros will buy as well. But the pool of pure hobbyists willing and able to plonk down 3.5k for a body alone is limited ... especially if a better camera is available for 2.8k from the competition.

I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.

 

[AvTvM]

I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.

most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.

 

[V8Beast]

I just voted, did that take away or add to this poll's suckiness?

No, it would have sucked either way ;D

 

[V8Beast]

most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.

It's tough to generalize like that. I know lots of pros whose gear is limited to a primary body, a backup body, and 3-4 zooms. Some might only have 2-3 zooms along with a couple of fast primes. It's true that they make their money with their gear, but I don't know a lot of rich, full-time photographers. I depends what type of pro you're talking about, too. Sports photogs might have a ton of gear, as you suggest, but a photojournalist or wedding photog might be limited to a small handful of zooms and primes. Hobbyists, on the other hand, cover the gamut from a soccer mom with a kit lens to people with loads of disposable income with several Pelican cases full of gear.

You do make some good points about pros being less likely to switch. For one, a lot of pros are out of touch in terms of the latest and greatest gear on the market. A lot of pros look at me like I'm crazy when I mention the strides Nikon has made in the last 4-5 years, and how they're putting out an outstanding product line now. Plus, as you suggest, familiarity with a system is very important as well.

 

[briansquibb]

I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.

most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.

It is not down to money but inertia - they dont have the time or the inclination to learn about a new system when they struggle with their existing kit. That is vendor independent. Just the different terminalogy is enough to put them off.

We are talking about the big group of hobbyists now - not the enthusiasts who tend to know their way round. But then the enthusiasts are the ones that will have a 5Dx/7D plus a couple of L lens.

 

[Marsu42]

I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.

most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.

+1 - professionals depend on the whole infrastructure, including vendor support and switching isn't an option taken lightly. Some hobbyists or enthusiasts might see photography just as collecting a pile of lenses and camera bodies, but that's naive - there's much more to it, esp. if your income depends on your gear.

 

[briansquibb]

+1 - professionals depend on the whole infrastructure, including vendor support and switching isn't an option taken lightly. Some hobbyists or enthusiasts might see photography just as collecting a pile of lenses and camera bodies, but that's naive - there's much more to it, esp. if your income depends on your gear.

I suppose you think that applies only to professionals? Amateurs rely a lot on the infrastructure as well.

You try being in the position where your pension is spent on your gear and tell me if they are just collecting gear. Enthusiasts tend to take a very wide range of photos - much wider than professionals and therefore need a wider range of gear. Why do you think I have all three sensor types? No - they were for for carefully consdered reasons and bought used to keep the spend down. I couldn't contemplate switching brands now as my pile of Canon specific kit is so large that it would take months and months to get back to the the same position that I am in now - even if that was possible.

D800 cheaper than the 5DIII? So what - I dont need a 5DIII as my 1DS3 is more than adequate for portraits/landscapes and is adequate at sports too in emergency. The images dont deteriorate as the camera gets older so there has to be a reason to upgrade/purchase.

I only have one fun piece of kit - a D30. I am looking to see what level of IQ I can get from it - after all it is $2450 cheaper than a D800

 

[AvTvM]

The images dont deteriorate as the camera gets older ...

There is sensor aging. After something like 4-5 years and an according number of exposures, imaging sensors do show signs of degradation. Similar to any other electric and electronic item which also degrade with use ... from light bulbs to memory chips and SSDs.

Got no specifics right now, but read about it some time ago and remember, that is was quite visible in terms of increased noise levels, dead subpixels etc.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

wow, another post basically singing the same song, but this time to a slightly different tune....

Whether your a pro, semi pro, hobbyist, enthusiast or novice - to buy, what to buy, or not to buy is all about need vs gain vs intended use.If your a landscape shooter, and have the disposable money/sell enough prints to afford it - go get yourself a d800 and be happy with it. If you make no money with photography at all though, then I have to say it ---you don't have needs at all, nothing is NEEDED, its all wants ---and those people do tend to be the most vocal, and want more than what any provider can offer. Best way to describe this is that they are fickle (because their decisions are based solely on wants which change faster than needs). Not bashing, just making a valid point. If your a pro or semi-pro though, you do have needs. If you work in the studio mostly, and produce images for billboards or other large scale assignments, then yeah, go with the d800. If you shoot a mix of studio/portrait/wedding/event work, then you may find the mk3 to be a very well rounded camera. If you shoot studio/portraits and aren't printing giant sized prints and are using a 5d2, then I can see why the mk3 doesn't offer enough. But if you shoot weddings, the improved AF and ISO do make the mk3 a very worthwhile upgrade. Sports shooters offer a whole different set of needs and wants to the mix - sports shooters need range and for them a better IQ APS-C would be the best fit cause you need the range and may not be able to justify the cost of longer zoom lenses, also, fps and buffer limit are a big factor to you. Needs vs wants though - are you shooting at the super bowl, or your kids little league game? The superbowl shooter has more clearly defined needs, while the little league shooter has wants (and yeah, theres lots of room inbetween, semipros and lower level pros may be earning money shooting, but not enough to afford/justify a 1dx with a 200-400 lens, or any FF camera due to the reach they need - again, the crop sensor isa very valid option for these shooters.

I really think the 7d is a good example of how a 'try to satisfy too many needs in one cheap package camera' shows its limitations. It has this good enough in all categories feel to it, but nothing outstandingly stellar in any one field problem. I would love to see the 7d line re-envisioned, and split into 2 - a 7d2 and a 7dx... one being optimized for low light and IQ, 22 mpx sesnor, lower fps expanded ISO range (a good entry level wedding cam/a really good backup body), and one for sports shooters optimized for fps. I highly doubt this will happen, but one can dream. AS a 7d shooter who shoots weddings, portraits, events and art - greater ISO range and and better IQ at 3200-6400 is far more important than fps. This is also why the mk3 makes sense for me, and once I can afford one I am snagging one (about $800 off now, uggg...I would have one now but opted to invest in lighting)...

As to the mk3 being $500 more than the d800, it really doesn't matter to me. I see the benefits of the AF and ISO range that the mk3 would give me. The d800 would suit the needs of my portrait work, and my fine art work, but not the needs of my wedding and event work - in that regard the lack of sRAW and mRAW options are deal breakers. And as to portrait work - investing in lighting has already lead my clients saying WOW, and thats with a 7D - so again, the d800 ain't attractive enough to do any switching. It all boil down to needs vs wants vs ROI (ROI will only matter to pros and semi-pros).

 

[ramon123]

I find something quite difficult to understand.

Most people are arguing over $500-$600, meaning people think the 5D Mark III should cost around $2999. We're talking about the most cutting edge 2012 technology that will be of great use till late 2015, the potential to make some good money and/or amazing usage as a hobbiest. Three years of usage (at least) comes out to roughly $165 a year more than your "budget". People spend that amount on buying some stupid item or on a pair of shoes - without even thinking twice so why suddenly not spend it on this incredible DSLR.

If you are really into it and want it then a few hundred dollars more is not going to stop you having the most desired camera of 2012 and an all time classic.

 

[briansquibb]

I find something quite difficult to understand.

Most people are arguing over $500-$600, meaning people think the 5D Mark III should cost around $2999. We're talking about the most cutting edge 2012 technology that will be of great use till late 2015, the potential to make some good money and/or amazing usage as a hobbiest. Three years of usage (at least) comes out to roughly $165 a year more than your "budget". People spend that amount on buying some stupid item or on a pair of shoes - without even thinking twice so why suddenly not spend it on this incredible DSLR.

If you are really into it and want it then a few hundred dollars more is not going to stop you having the most desired camera of 2012 and an all time classic.

+1 especially as the total cost of switching is likely to cost more then $500

 

[ramon123]

People would go and spend $100-$150 on a nice meal without thinking much but when Canon put up the price for a reason, just because people don't know why yet doesn't mean that they are wrong. Let's say a possibility is that they are bringing out an entry level FF camera at the $2300-$2400 range so then everyone would understand that Canon have shifted the 5D3 into a higher category and brought in a newer model to replace the 5D2. Even if they didn't bring in an entry level FF, we're talking about a few hundred dollars here and if that's too much then I guess you've chosen the wrong profession/hobby!

Happy shooting ;D

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I shoot with a 5D classic and a 7D. Between the two of them, they meet all my needs. After two years of work and sending them in to Canon service for calibration, they are working properly. And just as important, I understand the limitations of each one. I just have to pick the right one for the job and use it within its limits. (The poor autofocus on the 5D being the most annoying.)

While waiting for the 5D 3 to appear, I was pretty excited thinking that I could buy a camera with full frame image quality and the fast handling of the 7D. I even figured out how to pay for it at what I expected to be 3K in US dollars.

The extra $500 may not seem like much, but it was enough of a psychological surprise that it caused me to re-evaluate my need for a new camera and I decided not to purchase one. It made me feel like Canon was trying to take advantage of my presumed loyalty to the brand.

I will wait until the end of this year to see if the price drops into my comfort zone. Maybe when the supply chain is filled and all the early adopters have their Mark 3s, Canon will allow some discounting.

If the price does not come down (and assuming Canon does not come out with a new camera that meets my needs) I will have to think seriously about the full frame Nikons. Or maybe I'll just keep shooting with my current cameras until they fall apart!

 

[RLPhoto]

I shoot with a 5D classic and a 7D. Between the two of them, they meet all my needs. After two years of work and sending them in to Canon service for calibration, they are working properly. And just as important, I understand the limitations of each one. I just have to pick the right one for the job and use it within its limits. (The poor autofocus on the 5D being the most annoying.)

While waiting for the 5D 3 to appear, I was pretty excited thinking that I could buy a camera with full frame image quality and the fast handling of the 7D. I even figured out how to pay for it at what I expected to be 3K in US dollars.

The extra $500 may not seem like much, but it was enough of a psychological surprise that it caused me to re-evaluate my need for a new camera and I decided not to purchase one. It made me feel like Canon was trying to take advantage of my presumed loyalty to the brand.

I will wait until the end of this year to see if the price drops into my comfort zone. Maybe when the supply chain is filled and all the early adopters have their Mark 3s, Canon will allow some discounting.

If the price does not come down (and assuming Canon does not come out with a new camera that meets my needs) I will have to think seriously about the full frame Nikons. Or maybe I'll just keep shooting with my current cameras until they fall apart!

+1. Shoot the same bodies here as well. Till my 5Dc breaths it's last breath!