Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[dswatson83]

The problem Canon has with pricing and sales will not be the Mark III. Most willing to pay $3000 will figure out a way of getting $3500. But for $700 more than the Mark II, the Nikon D800 is tempting. Personally I prefer the Mark III to the D800 (I prefer to have low light abilities and speed than MP), but the D800 is a more modest upgrade from current 5D mark II owners and offers improvements everywhere if you don't mind switching.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Will they at least kit it with the 24-70 II instead of just the somewhat ill-performing 24-105L? If they kit it with the 24-70 II for a big discount it would make up a bit for somewhat shocking $3500 body price tag. If not, then that combo becomes pretty out of this world.

 

[Studio B]

I have seen quite a few comments suggesting that Pro photographers have no problem paying the high prices and its only the amateurs and dreamers who have issues with it.

Personally I have a hard time understanding that. Isn't Pro photography a business? And isn't it the function of a business to make as much profit as possible, i.e. make as much money for as little outlay as can be managed? Maybe some people think paying more for your kit makes you more of a "Pro" than others? I dont know.

Jason, for a Professional Photographer it's not so much about "as little outlay as can be managed" as it is ROI or Return on Investment and how long that will take. In some markets a ROI for this body is a day, in other markets one can expect a ROI for a digital back in a day.

See attachment

 

[Maui5150]

The problem Canon has with pricing and sales will not be the Mark III. Most willing to pay $3000 will figure out a way of getting $3500. But for $700 more than the Mark II, the Nikon D800 is tempting. Personally I prefer the Mark III to the D800 (I prefer to have low light abilities and speed than MP), but the D800 is a more modest upgrade from current 5D mark II owners and offers improvements everywhere if you don't mind switching.

Depends on what you are considering upgrade...

In terms of cost, Nikon is a smaller jump, and yeah, you get a bunch more pixels. In terms up upgrade, IQ and ISO on the Canon look very very good from the early shots, and ISO 25,600 versus 6400???

I think the Nikon might have a little bit better metering, but in terms of AF and ISO, these look stellar for Canon, especially if low light is necessary... like a wedding photog needing to shoot in a church.

I think in the end, the Nikon is an easier "step" for some to make, but the Canon is the "bigger" step in terms of quality. Canon also appears to be faster FPS as well. Not surprising given the MP difference, but I think side by side, Nikon gets Metering, MP, and maybe some small video, but Canon kills it in ISO, IQ and AF seems like it may be a win as well

 

[XanuFoto]

People who come in here an say they are moving to D800 fall in these categories.

1) They own a entry level Canon with a kit lense and can move over because they do not have an investment in L Lense.
2) Just get carried away with mega pixels the same way they got swayed when the MKII came out with 21 MP
3) Are generally not Top pros because most good photographers do not get swayed one way or the other every six months.

It all depends what you want. I you want a solid all round camera that will be above avarage in various deciplines like Sport, Events (weddings), Fashion, Landscape then this camera is good bang for the buck. If you are focused just on Landscape/Fashion then the D800 makes sense. If you are strictly sports then get the 1DX or D4. I my slef want to dabble in everything and for me the 5D MKIII makes sense.

 

[unfocused]

Fascinating to me: One thread of people "hugely disappointed" by the price, another thread of people discussing the best source for pre-orders. Only time will tell, but it doesn't feel like Canon made a major error in pricing.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I have seen quite a few comments suggesting that Pro photographers have no problem paying the high prices and its only the amateurs and dreamers who have issues with it.

Personally I have a hard time understanding that. Isn't Pro photography a business? And isn't it the function of a business to make as much profit as possible, i.e. make as much money for as little outlay as can be managed? Maybe some people think paying more for your kit makes you more of a "Pro" than others? I dont know.

Some justify the price by saying things like "yeah but look the technology is improving and all that costs big bucks, look at what they did with the sensor and what about R&D for the 5D Mark IV? etc . . ." It's my observation that in practically every other area technology is getting more and more sophisticated while also getting cheaper and cheaper.

And I am not just talking about mainstream high volume items where shear numbers enables pricing to be very low. I have other niche hobbies like music recording and amateur radio. In amateur radio the hot thing right now is Software Defined Radio. Incredible and previously unheard of power possible through hugely more powerful A/D chips while being comparably cheaper than the tech it replaces. And that is all done in a niche market that is much smaller than the intended customer base for the 5D. R&D for this tech is currently progressing at a very rapid pace.

I dont think that the problem is just the price being £3000 its also about the perceived value for money in a world where more sophisticated tech is getting increasingly cheaper.

Just my 2 cents

Jason

Pro photography is a business, and its a competitive one. Not all pro's are at the same level of experience - some have been pros for years and easily justify and afford and preorder immediately. Others like myself, are just starting out, and money is tighter, but we still have to make the most prudent decisions on where to place it. And on that level, this year for me is turning out to be both very exciting and depressing because theres so much new stuff, but what can my budget maintain? I really need to evaluate my needs vs my wants vs the potential ROI with what ever moves i make. I'm staring my second year as a pro, and working on a 7d. I know I need to move to full frame, but I'm also intent on the goal of doubling my 2011 income (from 14K to 28K. And while the mkiii might grant an immediate gain in image quality, will it lead to more paying jobs than investing in speedlights, pocket wizards and modifiers? Which comes first? My art photography would get a huge boost from either the mkiii or the d800, but the ROI on art would never justify the purchase. For events/portraits/weddings though, it will be very hard indeed to compete with other togs using systems that provide both higher ISO than I can attain, and cleaner shots at that high ISO than I can attain. Even with a bunch of speedlights, if you can shoot at 25600 ISO, and have it be cleanerr and less noisy than what I can do at 3200 ISO, then I'm kind of stuck only taking jobs in well lit places, or lowering my prices, or offering more perks and service - all of which eats away at my bottom line.

In short, the decision to spend $3500 on a body is not an easy one, pro or not. With that said, it is on my list of goals to have one of these by fall!

 

[MikeHunt]

Canon Inc. obviously read this blog on a daily basis, because the online CR Polls had $3500 in at the top price with the consensus firmly centred on $3000

Can you blame Canon for giving customers what they asked for??

 

[APBPhoto]

I understand the $3500 price for the camera and I am willing to drop down the cash this spring.
But I really don't get $500 price for the battery grip, it is about twice as much as the current grips for a extra buttons.
My fingers can reach the controls on my camera fine with my current grip, so was someone out there asking for more stuff on the grip?

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

That doesn't work that way. For low end models, sure, but at the 5Ds place in the market, the actual manufacturing and parts cost is only a very broad, general starting point and not at all an indication of the final price. 3.5K is what Canon's research indicated is the ideal starting point in terms of price/volume. It could just as easily been 2.5K or 4.5K without any change to hardware. Heck, if they are selling the 5DIII for 3.5K, I have no doubt they could sell the 1DX for 4K and still turn a profit.

As for the "discounts" you mentioned, even then it doesn't add up.
Rate Button - 0. The button itself might cost as much as a penny but now they'll have to make a new set of molds.
FPS - Perhaps, but the lower quality mirror box parts do not amount to 150$ savings. Maybe 50$. Maybe.
Video - 0. The R&D is already done and removing software does not give you any savings.
AF Points - Perhaps a negligible discount as the cost of manufacturing the chips is pretty much identical.

And then you have to take into account that we'll be talking about a second production line and extra costs in logistics for both Canon and the vendors. The bottom line is that from a hardware point of view, there is very little justification to produce a baby 5DIII. I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it will it will be marketing driven and not technology driven. And that doesn't take into account that they are keeping the 5D2 in production for a while at least which at 2K is one hell of bargain for what you get.

 

[XanuFoto]

I look at this way.

Due to the improved AF if I am able to get 20% more keepers then I am willing to pay more. Due to the high ISO I am able to get more business because now I am allowed in places where flash is not allowed, I am willing to pay the higher price. If I am to get some better sealing which helps me take risks in bad weather to get "That shot" then I am willing to pay more. If I am able to nail that extra great sporting shot due to the better AF and fast FPS then I am willing to pay a liitle etc.

 

[RC]

One more option needed: "Wait a while for the 5D III to drop"

I figure I'm at least a year away until I have the funds for a new body anyway and I do want the 3 over the 2. Hopefully the price will drop below 3K.

 

[JPL_1020]

This an introductory price and it was anticipated to be high just like any new products introduced. If you're complaining about the high price, then wait for a price drop in a year or so. In the meantime, go and take pictures out there. Yes, new features are convenient and nice, BUT it's NOT going to change how you shoot.

If you're able to wait this long, then you should be fine for another year until you can afford it.

 

[awinphoto]

I have seen quite a few comments suggesting that Pro photographers have no problem paying the high prices and its only the amateurs and dreamers who have issues with it.

Personally I have a hard time understanding that. Isn't Pro photography a business? And isn't it the function of a business to make as much profit as possible, i.e. make as much money for as little outlay as can be managed? Maybe some people think paying more for your kit makes you more of a "Pro" than others? I dont know.

Some justify the price by saying things like "yeah but look the technology is improving and all that costs big bucks, look at what they did with the sensor and what about R&D for the 5D Mark IV? etc . . ." It's my observation that in practically every other area technology is getting more and more sophisticated while also getting cheaper and cheaper.

And I am not just talking about mainstream high volume items where shear numbers enables pricing to be very low. I have other niche hobbies like music recording and amateur radio. In amateur radio the hot thing right now is Software Defined Radio. Incredible and previously unheard of power possible through hugely more powerful A/D chips while being comparably cheaper than the tech it replaces. And that is all done in a niche market that is much smaller than the intended customer base for the 5D. R&D for this tech is currently progressing at a very rapid pace.

I dont think that the problem is just the price being £3000 its also about the perceived value for money in a world where more sophisticated tech is getting increasingly cheaper.

Just my 2 cents

Jason

Pro photography is a business, and its a competitive one. Not all pro's are at the same level of experience - some have been pros for years and easily justify and afford and preorder immediately. Others like myself, are just starting out, and money is tighter, but we still have to make the most prudent decisions on where to place it. And on that level, this year for me is turning out to be both very exciting and depressing because theres so much new stuff, but what can my budget maintain? I really need to evaluate my needs vs my wants vs the potential ROI with what ever moves i make. I'm staring my second year as a pro, and working on a 7d. I know I need to move to full frame, but I'm also intent on the goal of doubling my 2011 income (from 14K to 28K. And while the mkiii might grant an immediate gain in image quality, will it lead to more paying jobs than investing in speedlights, pocket wizards and modifiers? Which comes first? My art photography would get a huge boost from either the mkiii or the d800, but the ROI on art would never justify the purchase. For events/portraits/weddings though, it will be very hard indeed to compete with other togs using systems that provide both higher ISO than I can attain, and cleaner shots at that high ISO than I can attain. Even with a bunch of speedlights, if you can shoot at 25600 ISO, and have it be cleanerr and less noisy than what I can do at 3200 ISO, then I'm kind of stuck only taking jobs in well lit places, or lowering my prices, or offering more perks and service - all of which eats away at my bottom line.

In short, the decision to spend $3500 on a body is not an easy one, pro or not. With that said, it is on my list of goals to have one of these by fall!

I couldn't agree more... I've been a pro for the last 7 years and just recently I got a second body. Like you I used the 7D professionally for almost 2 full years exclusively and recently got a 5d2 which I plan on liquidating to get the 5d3. Unless you are one of the top 5% of pro photographers, things aren't always glamourous... the more gear you get, the more overhead you occur, the more overhead you get, the more ROI really becomes important... Then you got fierce competition, you got clients in a down economy slashing budgets let alone advertising budgets, or struggling families deciding if they can afford you to do their pictures... Heck I have a client who is having a wedding in lake tahoe trying to negotiate lower wedding photos... Really? If you are having a wedding in tahoe, you can afford photos. We got to do what we got to do in order to put food on the table, a roof over our families heads, and keep our book keepers and IRS happy and off our backs... It is what it is. As for me I plan on picking one up as soon as possible (and a few clients checks come in).

 

[awinphoto]

This an introductory price and it was anticipated to be high just like any new products introduced. If you're complaining about the high price, then wait for a price drop in a year or so. In the meantime, go and take pictures out there. Yes, new features are convenient and nice, BUT it's NOT going to change how you shoot.

If you're able to wait this long, then you should be fine for another year until you can afford it.

If you're expecting the price to drop within a year, you're probably sadly mistaken... 18 months, maybe you'll start seeing rebates, maybe...

 

[hhelmbold]

The only thing that I am disappointed with is that the 5D MkIII get's announced and released in the same month and we have been drooling in anticipation for the 1D X for over 4 months now ;D

 

[KHAWACHEN]

Me too. I just couldn't justify the price so I cancelled my pre-order on Amazon.

So it's out. Seems like a great camera, but I'm incredibly disappointed in the price. After about 4 years after the II, the III comes out at a much higher price tag. Now, if you look at Apple, they release products every year that are better spec'ed yet they don't increase the price with each release just because it was better than the last iteration.

It's expected that technology improves, right? I understand the dollar has weakened over the last few years but this just seems like a ridiculous price increase. Looks like I won't be getting one, not because I can't but because I feel it isn't worth it.

How's everyone else feel about it?

 

[kdsand]

That doesn't work that way. For low end models, sure, but at the 5Ds place in the market, the actual manufacturing and parts cost is only a very broad, general starting point and not at all an indication of the final price. 3.5K is what Canon's research indicated is the ideal starting point in terms of price/volume. It could just as easily been 2.5K or 4.5K without any change to hardware. Heck, if they are selling the 5DIII for 3.5K, I have no doubt they could sell the 1DX for 4K and still turn a profit.

As for the "discounts" you mentioned, even then it doesn't add up.
Rate Button - 0. The button itself might cost as much as a penny but now they'll have to make a new set of molds.
FPS - Perhaps, but the lower quality mirror box parts do not amount to 150$ savings. Maybe 50$. Maybe.
Video - 0. The R&D is already done and removing software does not give you any savings.
AF Points - Perhaps a negligible discount as the cost of manufacturing the chips is pretty much identical.



And then you have to take into account that we'll be talking about a second production line and extra costs in logistics for both Canon and the vendors. The bottom line is that from a hardware point of view, there is very little justification to produce a baby 5DIII. I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it will it will be marketing driven and not technology driven. And that doesn't take into account that they are keeping the 5D2 in production for a while at least which at 2K is one hell of bargain for what you get.

Yes exactly!
I have worked on assembly line's I've been a fabricator and then management.
I find it quite irritating to hear people state Canon must charge a certain price.

The price for parts & to produce the hardware is much the same from 1 body make to the next. The cost of assembly will be nearly the same. Even the sensor and chips are similar in cost. Having variations if anything cost canon more money. That nice metal body well that probably only cost 10 or 20 dollars.

The 7 d sensor has been a humongous money maker. Lenses they have also been a great return investment for canon. How many electronic companies can sell the same exact product for 5,10 or even 20 years?
The research and development is yes a high expense. The longer a company can go without retooling well that's all gravy.

So yes the only thing that dictates the price is what the market will bear. Ridiculous the hear people say canon has to defray cost or you get what you pay for.

They can charge a high price now but in the long term it may prove a mistake.

 

[Axilrod]

well this is what i call a mass suicide, and i thought that the tech on the D800 was old, lmao look at the metering system on this beauty, no AF on video, black spots(a la 5dmk2), omfg no clean uncompressed hdmi out, wasn't this thing suppose to be a cinema minded kind of HDSLR king, so why the ___ this options aren't there? omg the video from the D800 is crap compared to Canon's but c'mon, at least a proper face lift to justify the price hype madness that is going on at Canon, Jesus this is not Olympus with it's bloated company, this is Canon men i use to have them since i was 15 yo.

Sure I'm a little disappointed about no clean HDMI, but it's better than a 480p signal. I don't think AF for video is realistic with interchangeable lenses, it would be a costly feature that would increase the price even more and considering some people will never use the video feature it would just be a waste. And no, it wasn't supposed to be the HDSLR king of cinema or whatever, the Cinema DSLR is.

 

[Axilrod]

Woah ok now I was cool with the price of the 5DIII, but $490 for a friggin battery grip? Have they lost their minds?!