Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[shuttersound]

Im new to the photography so i might be wrong but isnt replacement models are supposed to be priced around the older model? For example Apple or even Nikon : They dont mark up THAT much of a replacement model when they added new technology, like better camera and retina display becos its supposed to be replacement model. So if thts the way how Canon wants to price 5D4 or future models, are we expecting the price to go up even higher as the series goes up? :'(

 

[Martin]

I dont where you are getting your information from but I would start reading/listening elsewhere.

Only series 1 focus properly? Oh dear me you have been lead up the garden path - I suppose you are going to tell us next that the 7D is a lousy camera for sports and the 5DII is useless at weddings.

If that is how you feel I suggest you go back to Nikon before you smell the coffee

My information is 100% true, and I got it from my own experience as well as other resources, but mostly based on my exp as said earlier. Hey,I worked with both system and I think that you have only worked with 5d2. The AF there is a mistake, of course it you used almost any Nikon before. Please take even a D300 and go for sports, weddings etc..check it...a new world order will be presented for you (of course i don't compare image quality)

I even stopped taking photos due to 5d2, which i really don't like.

The 5D2 is such a bad camera it made you quit photography?! LOL that's hilarious, and stupid.

I did not. But taking photos with gear that u hate is a problem. I bought new gear and within 6 months 2 lenses and a body was serviced for 5 times. 5d2 was calibrated 3 times for AF, has problems with light mattering (very underexposed images-for sure it was not my fault, trust me) , 50mm couldn't focus properly (was broken from the begining), 5d2 could not sync @ 1/200-my highest x sync was 1/125. WB in 5d2 was drama, I felt like having a camera which is 10 years old. And that plastic feeling in hand...just did not like the camera. Imagine ur a pro driver and u have a car u hate for many reasons. Would you like to drive? Isn't it all about passion and liking what you do?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It might also help if they say offered it in a kit with the 24-70 II instead of just the 24-105 (which I do not want ever again) for a nice big discount, say $500 for the combo. $3500+$2300 for the pairing is a bit nuts. A kit with a big discount would start making the pricing look a bit more sensible.

It would also help if they held off slashing the 5D2 price a bit longer since this will cut resale value of the 5D2 and make the 5D3 seem yet even expensive.

 

[briansquibb]

My information is 100% true, and I got it from my own experience as well as other resources, but mostly based on my exp as said earlier. Hey,I worked with both system and I think that you have only worked with 5d2. The AF there is a mistake, of course it you used almost any Nikon before. Please take even a D300 and go for sports, weddings etc..check it...a new world order will be presented for you (of course i don't compare image quality)

You are hopelessly wrong in your assumptions about the cameras I have used and the cameras I have.

A whole new world order from using a D300??? I think not

 

[jwong]

It might also help if they say offered it in a kit with the 24-70 II instead of just the 24-105 (which I do not want ever again) for a nice big discount, say $500 for the combo. $3500+$2300 for the pairing is a bit nuts. A kit with a big discount would start making the pricing look a bit more sensible.

It would also help if they held off slashing the 5D2 price a bit longer since this will cut resale value of the 5D2 and make the 5D3 seem yet even expensive.

Prices might already be dropping. CanonPriceWatch cites new 5D2 for 2100 from PMI Digital (Profeel) via Ebay. Moving up from APS-C, so I'll be interested to see where the prices go.

 

[Radiating]

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?

Actually Canon has the exact same pricing strategy as Apple. The thing is they are a Japenese company so they opperate in Yen. The 5D Mark II was released at 300,000 Yen, the 5D Mark III was released at 270,000 Yen, which is the first time they've actually introduced a product at a different price than the past version. Intro prices have never varried since the 1990s for a next generation product. So not only are they doing exactaly what you want, but they are offering their first discount in history on this camera.

Blame a weak US economy and the devaluing of the dollar.

 

[erfon]

There are little, subtle changes in the camera that I think will make $3500 seem even more reasonable. The click wheel on the back is actually fixed, and touch sensitive, which I thought was really cool. Not super high-tech or anything, but definitely cool. Vibration/silent mode is very useful for me, I can't wait to shoot some Astro time lapses with it, can't wait to see what this sensor is capable of "seeing."

That's actually not quite correct. The wheel still physically moves as it does on the Mark II, but now also includes the touch controls for video. And Thank God for that, I hate touch sensitive scrolling. It always makes it hard to select things and would be tough to impossible to use with gloves.

 

[kdsand]

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?

Actually Canon has the exact same pricing strategy as Apple. The thing is they are a Japenese company so they opperate in Yen. The 5D Mark II was released at 300,000 Yen, the 5D Mark III was released at 270,000 Yen, which is the first time they've actually introduced a product at a different price than the past version. Intro prices have never varried since the 1990s for a next generation product. So not only are they doing exactaly what you want, but they are offering their first discount in history on this camera.

Blame a weak US economy and the devaluing of the dollar.

You have a point there.

So then the question ishow long unit the economy improves & I can afford any new equipment?
:'(
"Sigh"

 

[AprilForever]

24-70 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0
70-200 2.8 IS II

Yep. I just want to be happy with my system and camera. I just want to be sure that if i am be loyal to one brand it will not disappoint me in future. Nikon never did. I really like their system. Once upon a time I just needed more mpix and iso 100 when d700 was hot in the market, so I decided to switch to Canon and THIS was mistake for me, a serious one. I even stopped taking photos due to 5d2, which i really don't like. And now, canon made a good (standard) AF system and probably nothing more important, selling camera for 3500$? Joke? Campetition has probably better AF, better build quality, more MP (not soooo important for me but...), far better ergonomics, is more customizable, has great flash system, better and more precise exposure mattering has better in-camera mechanics, can take more photos (200K), so far can register more DR, has much higher "real" x-sync, has no banding and visible noise @iso100, me NEFs are better for PP (maybe i am just used to nefs but i dont think this is the reason), is cheaper, more reliable. Hmm am I missing something? I just find Nikon more customer orientated and Canon leaded by accountants and financial managers (how to earn money, giving them almost same thing but let push them to pay more and more). Nikon invents, Canon follows. It's strange that u have to pay for 1series to achieve focus properly. I had a perfect and reliable AF in D300. Why I had to wait for years to have 3500$ good AF (probably). I wait for reviews for final decison bur so far I cant convince myself to stay with Canon.

I dont where you are getting your information from but I would start reading/listening elsewhere.

Only series 1 focus properly? Oh dear me you have been lead up the garden path - I suppose you are going to tell us next that the 7D is a lousy camera for sports and the 5DII is useless at weddings.

If that is how you feel I suggest you go back to Nikon before you smell the coffee

The 5D mk II was so bad you stopped taking pictures? A good friend of mine used the 5d MK I (yes, one) for YEARS. He made many large wall-sized prints from it, which look great. He shoots mostly weddings, events, and family stuff, though shoots outdoors. He is wild about the 5d MK II. He absolutely loves it. Yet, it made you stop taking pictures? I find this amusing...

My 7D makes me pretty happy. I remain enthralled with its quality. And, many say that the 5d MK II is much beyond the 7D for IQ for these sort of things (I'm more into birds...). So... anyway...

 

[randplaty]

"I'm selling my Mark II and buying a Nikon D800 for $2999"


Out of curiosity I was wondering what sort of lens these 20 respondents had. You are moving to another ecosystem to save on the Nikon camera body. You will take a haircut on your lenses along with the MKII. And will have to spend more money new Nikon lenses and a new computer. Obviously this decision is not because the MKIII is 500 dollars more expensive. Am I missing somethings here?

24-70 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0
70-200 2.8 IS II

Yep. I just want to be happy with my system and camera. I just want to be sure that if i am be loyal to one brand it will not disappoint me in future. Nikon never did. I really like their system. Once upon a time I just needed more mpix and iso 100 when d700 was hot in the market, so I decided to switch to Canon and THIS was mistake for me, a serious one. I even stopped taking photos due to 5d2, which i really don't like. And now, canon made a good (standard) AF system and probably nothing more important, selling camera for 3500$? Joke? Campetition has probably better AF, better build quality, more MP (not soooo important for me but...), far better ergonomics, is more customizable, has great flash system, better and more precise exposure mattering has better in-camera mechanics, can take more photos (200K), so far can register more DR, has much higher "real" x-sync, has no banding and visible noise @iso100, me NEFs are better for PP (maybe i am just used to nefs but i dont think this is the reason), is cheaper, more reliable. Hmm am I missing something? I just find Nikon more customer orientated and Canon leaded by accountants and financial managers (how to earn money, giving them almost same thing but let push them to pay more and more). Nikon invents, Canon follows. It's strange that u have to pay for 1series to achieve focus properly. I had a perfect and reliable AF in D300. Why I had to wait for years to have 3500$ good AF (probably). I wait for reviews for final decison bur so far I cant convince myself to stay with Canon.

You must not have been shooting for very long. Remember that the 5D original was the only full frame on the market for a long time? People were shooting with D200s and D2xs at that time. Remember than until this past year Nikon didn't even have a 35mm 1.4 prime? And a couple years ago they didn't have a 24mm 1.4 prime? Remember that Nikon still doesn't have 1.2 primes at all?

Once the D700 came out, the market shifted decidedly toward Nikon. I'll be the first to admit it, from 2008 until now, Nikon has had better bodies than Canon period. But the 5D3 has evened things out. It's going to shift back and forth, but don't give me bull about Nikon just being plain old more customer oriented. That has a really short memory and these companies are much older than that.

 

[randplaty]

Years ago people spent $2000+ for a laptop. Now you get 3 to 4 times faster CPU, 2 to 3 times bigger memory and hard drive, and much lighter weight. Are you going to pay $4000+ for a laptop?
Supply and demand determine the market price. 3500 might be a right price for the market. However, people shouldn't think 1000 dollars more is okay to buy some new features from a new device. You are comparing the two different cameras from different age and background.

Interesting analogy, but you are comparing a commodity (computer hardware) vs. a specific hardware brand. It would be better to have compared Canon to Apple.

I would have been happy to see the price at $2999 for the 5D mkIII, but over a three year period, the extra $14/month isn't going to keep me up at night. If nothing else, it simply makes me want to buy it earlier so I might ekk out a few more years with the camera.

You might get what you want. Historially Canon has always priced itself higher than the Nikon competition but they always drop their prices faster too.

 

[bornshooter]

"I'm selling my Mark II and buying a Nikon D800 for $2999"


Out of curiosity I was wondering what sort of lens these 20 respondents had. You are moving to another ecosystem to save on the Nikon camera body. You will take a haircut on your lenses along with the MKII. And will have to spend more money new Nikon lenses and a new computer. Obviously this decision is not because the MKIII is 500 dollars more expensive. Am I missing somethings here?

24-70 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0
70-200 2.8 IS II

Yep. I just want to be happy with my system and camera. I just want to be sure that if i am be loyal to one brand it will not disappoint me in future. Nikon never did. I really like their system. Once upon a time I just needed more mpix and iso 100 when d700 was hot in the market, so I decided to switch to Canon and THIS was mistake for me, a serious one. I even stopped taking photos due to 5d2, which i really don't like. And now, canon made a good (standard) AF system and probably nothing more important, selling camera for 3500$? Joke? Campetition has probably better AF, better build quality, more MP (not soooo important for me but...), far better ergonomics, is more customizable, has great flash system, better and more precise exposure mattering has better in-camera mechanics, can take more photos (200K), so far can register more DR, has much higher "real" x-sync, has no banding and visible noise @iso100, me NEFs are better for PP (maybe i am just used to nefs but i dont think this is the reason), is cheaper, more reliable. Hmm am I missing something? I just find Nikon more customer orientated and Canon leaded by accountants and financial managers (how to earn money, giving them almost same thing but let push them to pay more and more). Nikon invents, Canon follows. It's strange that u have to pay for 1series to achieve focus properly. I had a perfect and reliable AF in D300. Why I had to wait for years to have 3500$ good AF (probably). I wait for reviews for final decison bur so far I cant convince myself to stay with Canon.

You must not have been shooting for very long. Remember that the 5D original was the only full frame on the market for a long time? People were shooting with D200s and D2xs at that time. Remember than until this past year Nikon didn't even have a 35mm 1.4 prime? And a couple years ago they didn't have a 24mm 1.4 prime? Remember that Nikon still doesn't have 1.2 primes at all?

Once the D700 came out, the market shifted decidedly toward Nikon. I'll be the first to admit it, from 2008 until now, Nikon has had better bodies than Canon period. But the 5D3 has evened things out. It's going to shift back and forth, but don't give me bull about Nikon just being plain old more customer oriented. That has a really short memory and these companies are much older than that.

this guys a troll lol stopped taking photos what a dickhead lol he has the 70-200 2.8 mk2 so what body did he use it on?he is full of shite

 

[Martin]

You must not have been shooting for very long. Remember that the 5D original was the only full frame on the market for a long time? People were shooting with D200s and D2xs at that time. Remember than until this past year Nikon didn't even have a 35mm 1.4 prime? And a couple years ago they didn't have a 24mm 1.4 prime? Remember that Nikon still doesn't have 1.2 primes at all?

Once the D700 came out, the market shifted decidedly toward Nikon. I'll be the first to admit it, from 2008 until now, Nikon has had better bodies than Canon period. But the 5D3 has evened things out. It's going to shift back and forth, but don't give me bull about Nikon just being plain old more customer oriented. That has a really short memory and these companies are much older than that.

I know exactly what you writing about, however at present Nikon has it's 35 and 24 there's unfortunately no 135. I shoot since Canon G3, Nikon D70 than, Nikon D300 and finally C 5d2. You writing about the past, and I have to admit then the past looked different, but competition never sleeps, and the result can bee seen now. The only thing than Nikon missed a while ago was a MP at affordable price. Tell me who will chose a 5d3 if one has no canon lens? Do you really need ISO beyond 6400? Let's see what reviews and tests bring, but imho D800 is better in almost every aspect. It would be really strange if someone makes a decison based only on producer's past achievements. Take a look at present and the future.

 

[Martin]

this guys a troll lol stopped taking photos what a dickhead lol he has the 70-200 2.8 mk2 so what body did he use it on?he is full of S___e

Yeah, thx...I see that u cannot accept a different point of view. Probably You prefer when people say about their love to Canon etc. I just tried to be honest and present my point of view. I have experienced both systems and I am frustrated using one of them. I know each system, their raws, ups and downs. For me it was hard to admit to myself that I made a bad decision switching from old system. it is even harder, due to the fact that switching back will be even more expensive. it's nothing to do with trolling and i really don't understand you. I also know a lot of people who are very happy with 5d2, however most of them did not use Nikon before. Most studio photographers use 5d2 for studio work, due to the fact that it's affordable with it's 21 mpix. Me too, but I never liked it. Now the game changes. Canon made a lot of financial based decisons.

 

[EchoLocation]

I just recently switched from Nikon to Canon.

The reason i switched to Canon was for the glass. In my opinion that will give you the best image quality boost for your buck. I too was waiting for the Mark3 but I am still happy with a Mark2 for $2000.

I dont understand all the complaining on the $3500 price tag. If you don't want to spend it... don't. But don't think that $500 will be left in your pocket after your switch to Nikon. Nikon glass is more expensive so it will cost ya more.

I absolutely would have agreed with you..... until I saw the 24-70 2.8 II
2300 dollars!
After that, I thought for sure the 5DIII would be a reasonable price so as to tempt people with the camera then get them to buy expensive glass later... but no.
Now i'm looking at an extra 1000 dollars to have a Canon 5DIII and a 24-70 instead of an 800 with the same.
The recent trend at Canon is really high priced glass(and now camera bodies too,) and I don't see any sign that this will be changing.

Oh please dont make me explain yet again the difference between msrp and street prices. Wait 3 months and you will find the difference disappear like ice in the Grand Canyon in the summer

I know you know a lot about cameras, gear and whatnot, but I really don't need your help in understanding the difference between MSRP and the actual street price.
I was hoping(and expecting) that this body would fall in at or below the Nikon offering of 3000 dollars. I was looking forward to waiting a few months and buying this at XMas or early next year hopefully for around 2500-2700 or less. At this point I'm thinking at best this camera will be 3100 for XMas, which is just too much for me to consider spending on a camera.
While this camera will obviously be a step up from the 5DII, it is basically exactly what I expected(with maybe a few more AF points), if I would have been absolutely blown away by some specs or something maybe I'd accept the price a little easier. But nothing in this camera is earthshatteringly impressive or unexpected.

Brian, I know you have a truckload of Canon gear and were obviously going to buy this camera whether it was 2200 or 4000 dollars, so why are you in the "hugely disappointed in the price" thread?
Not everyone who is disappointed in the price is clueless or lacks understanding of pricing, exchange rates, or inflation.

 

[ippikiokami]

I just recently switched from Nikon to Canon.

The reason i switched to Canon was for the glass. In my opinion that will give you the best image quality boost for your buck. I too was waiting for the Mark3 but I am still happy with a Mark2 for $2000.

I dont understand all the complaining on the $3500 price tag. If you don't want to spend it... don't. But don't think that $500 will be left in your pocket after your switch to Nikon. Nikon glass is more expensive so it will cost ya more.

I absolutely would have agreed with you..... until I saw the 24-70 2.8 II
2300 dollars!
After that, I thought for sure the 5DIII would be a reasonable price so as to tempt people with the camera then get them to buy expensive glass later... but no.
Now i'm looking at an extra 1000 dollars to have a Canon 5DIII and a 24-70 instead of an 800 with the same.
The recent trend at Canon is really high priced glass(and now camera bodies too,) and I don't see any sign that this will be changing.

Oh please dont make me explain yet again the difference between msrp and street prices. Wait 3 months and you will find the difference disappear like ice in the Grand Canyon in the summer

I know you know a lot about cameras, gear and whatnot, but I really don't need your help in understanding the difference between MSRP and the actual street price.
I was hoping(and expecting) that this body would fall in at or below the Nikon offering of 3000 dollars. I was looking forward to waiting a few months and buying this at XMas or early next year hopefully for around 2500-2700 or less. At this point I'm thinking at best this camera will be 3100 for XMas, which is just too much for me to consider spending on a camera.
While this camera will obviously be a step up from the 5DII, it is basically exactly what I expected(with maybe a few more AF points), if I would have been absolutely blown away by some specs or something maybe I'd accept the price a little easier. But nothing in this camera is earthshatteringly impressive or unexpected.

Brian, I know you have a truckload of Canon gear and were obviously going to buy this camera whether it was 2200 or 4000 dollars, so why are you in the "hugely disappointed in the price" thread?
Not everyone who is disappointed in the price is clueless or lacks understanding of pricing, exchange rates, or inflation.

The thing is... considering all the information about the inflation... Is it not right to say some peoples' expectations of the price were pretty much unreasonable?

I'm not saying this thing is cheap by any means but I wasn't really surprised at all about the prices after seeing lenses and bodies of both Nikon and Canon "increase" due to the fluctuation in the Yen. Japan has been trying to prop up the dollars for a few years due to this exact issue. All of the Japanese companies that count on exporting have been hurting big time because of it.

 

[Fleetie]

And again: Why is this thread pinned, too?

Unnecessary and inappropriate.

 

[Axilrod]

That's actually not quite correct. The wheel still physically moves as it does on the Mark II, but now also includes the touch controls for video. And Thank God for that, I hate touch sensitive scrolling. It always makes it hard to select things and would be tough to impossible to use with gloves.

Look at 1:18, doesn't look like the wheel is moving to me. I know it has that lock switch below it, but it doesn't appear to be engaged.
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Preview by dpreview.com

Then at 1:31 in this video it refers to the wheel as "touch pad"
EOS 5D Mark III Walkaround COOL!

 

[amarelux]

Amazon Japan lists the body-only for ¥322,201, so at the current exchange rate this is $3,940, which makes the US price significantly lower than what it sells for in Japan.

 

[XanuFoto]

You must not have been shooting for very long. Remember that the 5D original was the only full frame on the market for a long time? People were shooting with D200s and D2xs at that time. Remember than until this past year Nikon didn't even have a 35mm 1.4 prime? And a couple years ago they didn't have a 24mm 1.4 prime? Remember that Nikon still doesn't have 1.2 primes at all?

Once the D700 came out, the market shifted decidedly toward Nikon. I'll be the first to admit it, from 2008 until now, Nikon has had better bodies than Canon period. But the 5D3 has evened things out. It's going to shift back and forth, but don't give me bull about Nikon just being plain old more customer oriented. That has a really short memory and these companies are much older than that.

I know exactly what you writing about, however at present Nikon has it's 35 and 24 there's unfortunately no 135. I shoot since Canon G3, Nikon D70 than, Nikon D300 and finally C 5d2. You writing about the past, and I have to admit then the past looked different, but competition never sleeps, and the result can bee seen now. The only thing than Nikon missed a while ago was a MP at affordable price. Tell me who will chose a 5d3 if one has no canon lens? Do you really need ISO beyond 6400? Let's see what reviews and tests bring, but imho D800 is better in almost every aspect. It would be really strange if someone makes a decison based only on producer's past achievements. Take a look at present and the future.

Do you really need ISO 6400?? I guess we need it because the D4 has it. See Nikon made a high MP decision. Good for them. I guess they will drive the middle market towards the D4. Maybe tactically its a good move. But i know well known wedding photogs like Lee Morris have publicly stately they woud have love Nikon to come out with a 22-24 MP camera becuase of the nightmare of dealsing with 36MP files. I am pretty sure lots of this technology is in both R&D labs. It the marketing and business divisions decide when and how to release it.