Just preordered the 5DIII, price is definitely $3499.99

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 12, 2011
1,386
1
As soon as I heard it was for sure I ran over to one of the biggest Canon dealers in GA, they already had an SKU for it and it's most definitely $3499 body only. I figured I would be first on the list, but I'm actually 4th, but I dont really care since I'll still get one from the first shipment. Nice to see Canon dealers acknowledging it's existence 8)
 
So if the body is 3499 and a 24-70mm is 2299 with the standard kit discount that would probably be around $5499.
Add a battery grip and we are looking at about $5750, well there goes my tax refund plus a tad more.....
 
Upvote 0
Can someone please find the correct answer to the following;

1. which kit lens is coming with the 5D3? are there going to be 2 kits?
2. if the price of the body is $3499 then how much will the kit be?
3. how can one justify a $1500 increase on body only? $2000 vs $3500
 
Upvote 0
ramon123 said:
Can someone please find the correct answer to the following;

1. which kit lens is coming with the 5D3? are there going to be 2 kits?
2. if the price of the body is $3499 then how much will the kit be?
3. how can one justify a $1500 increase on body only? $2000 vs $3500

Remember, the 5D2 was $2699 when it was released....it's $2000 now only by rebate and cuts. The list price on the Canon site is in fact $2499 right now for the 5D2.
 
Upvote 0
Chuck Alaimo said:
ramon123 said:
3. how can one justify a $1500 increase on body only? $2000 vs $3500

It's not a $1500 difference. More like an $1100 difference for brand new (at current price). The original starting of the mkii was closer to $2800. And the mkii is how many years old?

I agree with the other posters that the price increase isn't $1500 since the Mark II's MSRP was considerably higher than the $2,000 it is now.

That being said, maybe the poster's question was how could a current Mark II owner justify the cost of upgrading, rather than how could the company justify the cost increase?
 
Upvote 0
Cinnamon said:
Chuck Alaimo said:
ramon123 said:
3. how can one justify a $1500 increase on body only? $2000 vs $3500

It's not a $1500 difference. More like an $1100 difference for brand new (at current price). The original starting of the mkii was closer to $2800. And the mkii is how many years old?

I agree with the other posters that the price increase isn't $1500 since the Mark II's MSRP was considerably higher than the $2,000 it is now.

That being said, maybe the poster's question was how could a current Mark II owner justify the cost of upgrading, rather than how could the company justify the cost increase?

Point me to where your finding an mkii new at $2000? Over the holiday period I was seeing $2100 with rebates. Hell, I was seeing used mkii's going for $1900. I buried the idea of going mkii because of the price tag and of course knowing the mkiii is right around the corner. Still though, people are actively buying $1800-1900 used mkii's! $1900 for a used 4 year old body design vs $3500 for brand new body with improvements? Looking at it like that it actually isn't that much of a jump!

and while to some (mostly the heavy landscape crew), the mkiii isn't the upgrade they've wanted, for most it is! Higher native ISO, 61 pt AF with 41 cross type (compared to 9pt with 1 cross type)...those two points alone are considerable upgrades!
 
Upvote 0
Cinnamon said:
I agree with the other posters that the price increase isn't $1500 since the Mark II's MSRP was considerably higher than the $2,000 it is now.

That being said, maybe the poster's question was how could a current Mark II owner justify the cost of upgrading, rather than how could the company justify the cost increase?

I think it's more of a 1500 increase. For a crop camera user, the 1500 difference is real. For a 5DII owner who is selling the 5DII, it is real because he's selling it compared to a 2000 price for new, not against the original new price.

If Nikon's d800 is selling for 3000, what justifies Canon setting a price of 3500? In actual use, maybe the 5DIII is a lot better than the D800, but based on specs alone, I don't think there's a reason why Canon should charge a premium over what Nikon is offering.
 
Upvote 0
ramon123 said:
3. how can one justify a $1500 increase on body only? $2000 vs $3500

Canon 5D Mark II launched in 2008 for $2699.99

A 5D Mark III in 2012 at $3499.99 would only be an $800 mark up.

Also, remember, the $1999 Mark II pricing was a Christmas special, and is still officially listing at $2,499. Let's be fair and compare apples to apples here, and not apples to oranges.
 
Upvote 0
This isn't an answer those that are complaining about the price are going to like, so smite away.

Canon will charge $3499.99 for the 5D III out of the gate for one reason and one reason only, because they think they can!

They and their marketing people obviously feel that the market will support the price and that they will still sell a $hit load of these cameras.

Oh and another thing, as for the comparisons to the D800's price, Canon has had time to adjust their pricing since the D800's release and haven't, Canon most likely thinks they have a better all around camera, thus justifying the price.
 
Upvote 0
cliffwang said:
If 5D3's price is 3.5K, I will either stay with 5D2 or switch to Nikon.

Both Canon and Nikon have hiked up the cost of their new DSLR's by at least $1000.00. While it is getting that much more expensive at $3500 for the 5D3 ($3149 for the D800 w/ AA and $3449 w/o)...for the features...I think it's not that out of line. I was considering the flagship models to get the features I want. Now we know the features for the 5D3...no need to spend 7k on a 1D-X or $4700 CAD on a D3s or $6k on a D4. For this I'm happy. And know what I'll be getting myself for Xmas. :)

Plus, going with Nikon (I'm guessing you mean the D800)...it's a different type of camera...high MP studio/landscape camera.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.