Is the 5DIII the New 50D?

[unfocused]

Okay, I know this is sure to be controversial, but what the heck.

The differences between the 5DIII and the D800 have been the subject of endless debate on this forum. Now, Nikon seems poised to release a well-equipped D600 at a remarkably low price point if the rumors are true.

The 5DIII reminds me a bit of the 50D. The 50D was a great camera, but kind of a sales flop. It came out just as video was being introduced into DSLRs, but it had no video. Most 40D owners did not choose to update (instead waiting for a 60D that turned out to be the 7D...well I won't get into all that again).

Anyway the point being that there was nothing wrong with the 50D, but that a series of missteps, bad luck and poor timing combined to hurt the camera's sales.

I wonder if something similar is happening with the 5DIII. By all accounts, it is a great camera and seems to be very popular among its target audience: wedding and event photographers. But, will Canon be able to sustain 5DIII sales over the next three to four years? Is it $500 better than the D800? Or, is the D800 actually a slightly better camera at a lower price point? And, will sales fall if Nikon releases an entry-level full frame camera and Canon is forced to respond.

Now, before the Canon lovers and the Canon haters all go ballistic, keep in mind I'm not suggesting this means Canon is stupid or getting any part of its anatomy kicked or anything of the sort. In fact, making mistakes and learning from those mistakes are what makes a great company great. I'm just talking about one model in an entire lineup and suggesting that when we look back four or five years from now, I wonder if the 5DIII will be viewed as great camera that suffered from a series of unfortunate events.

 

[BillyBean]

Well, I suppose I have a view on this, having just bought a 5D3 !

I wondered long and hard about whether to wait longer and see if a higher resolution full-frame would come out.

The conclusion I came to in the end was that the 5D3 did what I wanted: it takes my Canon L glass, it has the resolution I want, it is a robust digital alternative to the EOS 3 that I am upgrading from.

So it has what i want and meets the specification I need.

Sure there will be something better along sooner or later.

Sure, maybe I could save some money if the price drops dramatically. But you can wait forever and never buy anything on that basis.

I'm happy with my decision. It's a great camera. Life is too short to wait around for the next great thing. Get out and shoot something...

 

[bdunbar79]

I see what you're saying. For any 50D owner, an upgrade to the 7D was hard to justify I suppose. But that's within Canon. You're talking Nikon vs. Canon. It's hard to switch over once you're invested. I really think Canon was simply trying to upgrade the 5D Mark II more than compete with Nikon, which yes, is unfortunate. But yes, the 5D Mark III is a very nice upgrade to the 5D Mark II. I've shot with both a lot and I can say that the upgrade is certainly there. I'm not sure this condition existed with the 50D vs. 7D. Yes the 7D was an upgrade, but was it enough of an upgrade if you already had one or two 50D's? However, if you have the means to switch to Nikon, it's like the old 1D Mark IV vs. Nikon D3s argument.

Personally I think these comparisons are simply tech and marketing comparisons. What did all 5D owners do when there was only a 5D? Everyone was happy and shooting high quality. But then Canon would get bashed upon release of the 5D Mark II because of nitpicking tech issues, even though it is clearly a better camera than the 5D.

I think a better question would be is the 5D Mark II the new 50D? Is it worth upgrading to the Mark III, much like 50D owners were asking about the 7D. I don't have the answer but it's an interesting question.

 

[Robert Welch]

The point made about the 50D not having video was the big reason I think it was not a major hit on the market, and because the AF was not upgraded. To say the 5DmkIII will have similar market irrelevancy is a hard comparison to make, the only thing I can see holding the 5DmkIII back from record breaking sales figures would be the price. That is the one thing Canon can address, if they feel the need to. I'm sure the price will come down some eventually, the question is how much? The answer will be how many does Canon want to sell?

I think the other aspect is what does Canon have up their sleeve? A ~$2k full frame camera may be on the horizon, and that camera would probably be a huge seller. I think Canon hurt some of their potential 1Dx sales by making the 5DmkIII so good (and by getting it to market so quickly), so they may decide to keep the price up on the 5DmkIII to offset some of the lost sales on the 1Dx. The new, lower cost full-frame will probably be the one they look to become the mass seller, pricing it more competitively to get record breaking sales figures. Does that mean the 5DmkIII will be irrelevant? I doubt it because it has all the top features, the less expensive model is sure to lack some of those, making it cheaper to produce and less desirable to those who require all the features. I would suspect the cheaper camera to not have the best weather sealing, a single card, maybe the AF won't be quite as good...sounds a lot like the 5DmkII, don't you think? Maybe it will have lower MP than the 5DmkIII, but the same AF. Whatever it is, I think you can count on the 5DmkIII still having better specs and still having a good place in the lineup, Canon has had a long time to bring that camera to market, and I'm sure they thought about what they would do to make sure it had adequate shelf live on the market.

 

[Axilrod]

It's hard to call the 5DIII a "sales flop" the pre-order lists were a mile long and it's STILL backordered at B&H and I have yet to see it have an "in stock" status for a sustained period of time. I think if the sales numbers drop Canon will drop the price, it happened with the 5DII so it doesn't seem impossible that the same will happen with the 5DIII. Technology evolves quickly and things can become dated quickly.

I've heard plenty of people say that the D800 feels flimsy/cheap in some areas and feels like a toy compared to the 5DIII. And if the D600 ends up being only $1500 I can only imagine that it will feel pretty cheap as well, and I have to say it does look kind of cheap in the pictures of it.

So no, I don't think the 5DIII will follow the path the 50D did. I think everyone needs to wait and see what else Canon has to offer later in the year and then go from there. No one can argue that the 5DIII isn't a hot seller though, and I'm sure if the price dropped to $3k it would sell even better.

 

[rcarca]

Bottom line is that each of us is on an individual journey. You buy some, and you pass on others. Like deciding when to upgrade your laptop or your software. Second bottom line: I love the 5Dmkiii... Third bottom line (triple bottom line is after all the current vogue for corporate reporting): It will be a long time before I change.

 

[pedro]

The point made about the 50D not having video was the big reason I think it was not a major hit on the market, and because the AF was not upgraded. To say the 5DmkIII will have similar market irrelevancy is a hard comparison to make, the only thing I can see holding the 5DmkIII back from record breaking sales figures would be the price. That is the one thing Canon can address, if they feel the need to. I'm sure the price will come down some eventually, the question is how much? The answer will be how many does Canon want to sell?

I think the other aspect is what does Canon have up their sleeve? A ~$2k full frame camera may be on the horizon, and that camera would probably be a huge seller. I think Canon hurt some of their potential 1Dx sales by making the 5DmkIII so good (and by getting it to market so quickly), so they may decide to keep the price up on the 5DmkIII to offset some of the lost sales on the 1Dx. The new, lower cost full-frame will probably be the one they look to become the mass seller, pricing it more competitively to get record breaking sales figures. Does that mean the 5DmkIII will be irrelevant? I doubt it because it has all the top features, the less expensive model is sure to lack some of those, making it cheaper to produce and less desirable to those who require all the features. I would suspect the cheaper camera to not have the best weather sealing, a single card, maybe the AF won't be quite as good...sounds a lot like the 5DmkII, don't you think? Maybe it will have lower MP than the 5DmkIII, but the same AF. Whatever it is, I think you can count on the 5DmkIII still having better specs and still having a good place in the lineup, Canon has had a long time to bring that camera to market, and I'm sure they thought about what they would do to make sure it had adequate shelf live on the market.

I will go for the 5D3. But not now. Hope the price comes down within the next 12 to 18 month. Saving up for a WA as well. Not the 16-35, the 17-40 is plenty for me as an amateur. As I already have a 77mm ND 10 filter, it doesn't make much sense. I do daylight longexpoures whenever I get down to the ocean...In the meantime my trusty 30D will do the job.

 

[Tammy]

No, the 5D Mark III is definitely not in a similar situation to the 50D. And as far as sales, not only judging from observation of those on this forum but also on the internet such as flikr etc, a great deal of people have already purchased a 5D Mark III and many more comment on their wishes for one or current intent of saving towards one.

Having been a 40D owner, I did decide to "upgrade" to the 50D instead of the 7D. While it was not a monumental jump, it was still a more capable tool to use than the 40D. Having used a 5D Mark II before the 5D Mark III, I can say and confirm that without a doubt the 5D Mark III is a noticeable upgrade from the Mark II, in various ways. The AF, the ergonomics/build, the frame rate, even the smaller things like the deeper bracketing for those of us who love to shoot HDR, etc. It is a great camera. I think what many people get caught up on is comparing the 5D Mark III as far as dollar value in comparison to an older, depreciated model. $2100 5D II vs $3,500 5D III. Any older last model will likely hold a significantly better price to performance value over a new model and this holds true for products throughout almost any industry. The 5D Mark II was $2,700 new. It would be fair if many were to think/ask, if the two were available brand new at their respective price points are the upgrades in the 5D Mark III worth $800? which would I buy?.. I, personally, would opt for the Mark III, which is really everything I wanted in the Mark II and wished I could have paid a bit more for to have.

 

[K-amps]

Makes sense, it could be the 50D of 2012. The Camera itself is great, but given the circumstance Canon might have missed a trick in pricing it. For me if they had a "E" version at the current price then it certainly would dampen my angst with its current price.

I do not want 75mb RAW files or 4fps so the 5d3 is pretty well suited for my purposes. Also... there is no 70-200 mk.ii magic going on on that side....

 

[Loswr]

What differentiates the 5DIII from the 50D is the target market.

But the D600 is potentially a game changer - a FF camera for not much more than the high-end APS-C which an entry-level APS-C consumer might consider as an upgrade.

 

[preppyak]

But the D600 is potentially a game changer - a FF camera for not much more than the high-end APS-C which an entry-level APS-C consumer might consider as an upgrade.

Yep, if the spec list for the D600 is even close to accurate (24mp, 39pt AF, 6fps...make 2 of those 3 correct and its crazy), and its priced at or below $2000, Canon will have to respond or lose a huge chunk of users. Because while I'd love full-frame, the 5dII lacks some of the things Id want for the occasional action/nature shooting I do. But, that's where my next body upgrade will be; into a full-frame with better AF, or into the 7dII with great specs...and the same is true for many other xxxD and xxD users. If the only option I have is to go up to a 5dIII, then I'd have to look elsewhere at some point

The D800 v 5dIII argument won't even cost Canon .1% of their market share, since its a relatively small base anyway. Being wrong about consumer (T4i, etc) and prosumer (60D/5dII) level cameras is where they lose percentages.

 

[BXL]

The 5D III is a great camera and looking at the "rumored" specs of the D600, I wonder if Canon is able to release an entry level FF that is able to compete with the D600 on price and specs without cannabalising sales from the 5D III...

 

[TotoEC]

So what if the 5DIII is the new 50D! Don't be discontented because it cost you $3500. Half a grand more than the D800. Get over it. Go out and do what you do best. . . take pictures . . .

I got a 50D and I like it very much and am still using it. I don't ever regret getting it. I have the 5DIII for almost a month now and I am still in the learning mode. But I am loving it! Don't get hang up on what other people say. . . . . they do it because they are envious of it!

 

[moreorless]

For me the difference seems likely to be the markets these two cameras are aiming at.

Aiming at the amature market price and headline features are going to be big factors where as in the professional market I'd say the compete package is often what governs sucess.

 

[dmj]

I find the debate between 5DIII Vs D800 pretty funny. Mostly because they're direct competitors and yet they're not. I agree, the have the same position in Canons and nikons lineup, but they're not really the same cameras. Funny thing is that the D800 are the true successor of the 5DII whare the 5DIII are the true successor of the D700, that is very general, but I think for most part it's true.

If you really struggle to decide which camera you want (economic consideration aside), then I'd say you don't know your needs well enough. If you do a lot of landscape, portrait and studio work or you really need to print big (Or if you're just a MP whore, which I guess most of us are to some extent), then go with the D800. If you want a faster AF, burst rate etc. you go with the 5DIII.

I chose the 5DIII, my combo was a 5DII and 7D. I hated the 7D, but it's speed was very welcome when the main body was a 5DII. The 5DIII really does bring the best from those two cameras together and the choice was clear to me. Between the 5DII and 5DIII I got my first kid and the speed suddenly meant a lot more to me than when I bought my 5DII.

So basically I bought the camera I needed, others are better off with a D800, but I actively chose and decided that not only ws the 5DIII the better camera for me, but it was also worth the extra money.

I don't really care if it will go over in history or it will be forgotten in 5 years, the photos I will get with it is what matters to me. Whatever I will be able to sell it for when it needs an upgrade, will show when that time comes, but so far the 5D series have held their resale value pretty well.

 

[sovietdoc]

5D III isn't like 50D was back in the day. 50D when it came out wasn't ridiculously overpriced for what it was.

I mean, I love my 5D3 and this is by far the best camera I've ever owned but I think considering what D800 is, and how much less it costs, 5d III price is too high.

I believe Canon is playing a game here, widening up the price gap for more upcoming cameras. For example like making their entry FF be around 2 grand. And then releasing a 3D series or maybe another 1D with high MP closer to 4500 or 5 grand.

 

[aznable]

it's depens waht use you are going to do with camera...for a sp camera 5d mk3 is better tha d800; btw both cameras arent aimed at mass market

 

[daniemare]

But the D600 is potentially a game changer - a FF camera for not much more than the high-end APS-C which an entry-level APS-C consumer might consider as an upgrade.

Yep, if the spec list for the D600 is even close to accurate (24mp, 39pt AF, 6fps...make 2 of those 3 correct and its crazy), and its priced at or below $2000, Canon will have to respond or lose a huge chunk of users. Because while I'd love full-frame, the 5dII lacks some of the things Id want for the occasional action/nature shooting I do. But, that's where my next body upgrade will be; into a full-frame with better AF, or into the 7dII with great specs...and the same is true for many other xxxD and xxD users. If the only option I have is to go up to a 5dIII, then I'd have to look elsewhere at some point

The D800 v 5dIII argument won't even cost Canon .1% of their market share, since its a relatively small base anyway. Being wrong about consumer (T4i, etc) and prosumer (60D/5dII) level cameras is where they lose percentages.

Yip, I agree. I know it is not statistically accurate to base a market need on my need alone, but as a Crop user, I want in on the FF goodness, but as a hobbyist I cannot shell out $3,500. If I only had EF-S lenses (which most corp users have) I would have jumped on the D600 if the current rumours are true. As moving from crop to FF (especially with Canon with no crop mode) is a bit like swithcing systems. I believe many people are in this boat. And no, the 5DII is not Canon's entry level contender for the average tech hungry hobbyist.

 

[Daniel Flather]

What differentiates the 5DIII from the 50D is the target market.

I went from a 50D to the 5D3. Did the market change or the target? :S

 

[bdunbar79]

What differentiates the 5DIII from the 50D is the target market.

I went from a 50D to the 5D3. Did the market change or the target? :S

Well I'm guessing by the glass you have that you changed as a photographer. You obviously wanted to step it up and go where a 50D can't go. I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's just the way I'd read that