Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value

[Jettatore]

People are upset in here. It would be cool (and rare) if we could all be considerate of that and help each other chill out, even if it means not getting our points across. That's seems more important.

 

[rocketdesigner]

People are upset in here. It would be cool (and rare) if we could all be considerate of that and help each other chill out, even if it means not getting our points across. That's seems more important.

I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread ... anyone have any advice on my next lens, or am I good to go???

 

[snowweasel]

I have had the 7D since about a month after it came out (It was my first Canon after shooting on Olympus for several years). I also purchased the 5Diii and have had it since the day after it came out. Is the 5Diii worth so much more? In my mind, yes, I don't regret the purchase in the least. That said, the 7D is still a pretty incredible camera and I intend to keep it as my backup body. If the 7D meets your needs, by all means go with it! It's certainly a more affordable price, and can get some great shots, as well as having several similar features to higher end cameras. I was ready for better low light performance and a full frame camera, though, and for that, the 5Diii is tough to beat!

 

[takoman46]

I think you answer your own question "Maybe I'm just a cheapskate;" What you deem a value is your limitation and that go's for all of us. To say insufficient value is only correct for you. If you don't have one or shot with one then you are speaking with absolutely no knowledge therefore your statement has no value ( not to be rude ) just the facts. I do own one, I did own the 5d2 and the 5d3 out preforms it by large margins in many areas. Bottom line is what is the need.. This camera separates the needs from the wants..

Happy Shooting !!

Well said . I suggest that people don't pass judgement on something until they have tried it for themselves. The 5D3 is expensive and I wouldn't expect someone that has doubts or reservations to buy one just to try it. But they can rent it for a day (which won't cost an arm and a leg) or find a friend that bought one and try it out to see what it's all about .

 

[snowweasel]

also, per your original post, both the 10-22 and the 60 macro are incredible lenses on the 7D. I've been debating whether I'll just continue to use the 7D when I need wide angle and macro abilities, or if I can justify buying equivalent (or better) lenses for the full frame (looking at the 16-35 2.8 L and the 100 2.8 L Macro IS). This is the downside to investing a lot in EF-S lenses. Several of them are great lenses...you just have to replace them if you ever make the jump to full frame.

 

[snowweasel]

People are upset in here. It would be cool (and rare) if we could all be considerate of that and help each other chill out, even if it means not getting our points across. That's seems more important.

I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread ... anyone have any advice on my next lens, or am I good to go???

You seem to have a pretty good kit that covers most everything, unless you are looking for something on the longer end (though the TC will help with that).

If you're looking for something to help your creativity, I've been playing around with a lensbaby recently. It's pretty fun, but definitely taking some practice to get used to (I got the composer pro, as well as the edge 80 optic, double glass, and fisheye).

 

[bfmawhinney]

I've been an amateur photographer for a while, graduated from college, paid off my loans, and now have some expendable income. As a T2i shooter, I've had FF envy for a long while and am finally ready to bite the bullet. 35 hundo is a big bullet to bite, agreed. And the jump from models was disappointing. But investing in 4-year old technology (argue what you want about Canon's "old" and "new," but consumer understanding is what's important) doesn't make sense to me. If you bought a 5DII in 2008 for $2500, and are selling it now for $1900, that's 4 years for $600. If I sell the 5DIII in 3 years for $3,000, that's the best rental price I can find. 5DII probably won't be worth much in 3 years...


So that's my logic.

 

[Jettatore]

I've been debating whether I'll just continue to use the 7D when I need wide angle and macro abilities, or if I can justify buying equivalent (or better) lenses for the full frame (looking at the 16-35 2.8 L and the 100 2.8 L Macro IS). This is the downside to investing a lot in EF-S lenses. Several of them are great lenses...you just have to replace them if you ever make the jump to full frame.

The kit I'm putting together (remaining pieces are in transit in the mail) is a 5D Mark 1 FF and 7D crop w/16-35, 24-70, 135+ 1.4x that gives me a combination of focal ranges between 16mm and 302.4mm @2.8 and sometimes f/2. I'm building this for photo journalism and street photography with the ability to have landscape, portrait and some wildlife shooting ability on hand as well. I get pretty good results shooting in low light with the 7D and from what I've gathered the 5D Mark I is even a bit better. 16-35 on FF + 38.4-112 on Crop (via the 24-70), or 24-70 on FF, and 216 or 302.4 on the crop (via 135 without and with 1.4 extender), there are a few other combinations but I think you get the picture. It gives me some options.

Would be cool if you could design a kit for what you want to shoot with the lenses you already have, you might just need to add one or swap one for another if you throw in a FF. I'm looking forward to testing out this approach. Have had the 7D and the 16-35 and 24-70 for a long while now and I love the results, so looking forward to the finished kit finally coming in. I'll let you guys know how it's coming along as I adjust to it and learn it.

 

[rocketdesigner]

People are upset in here. It would be cool (and rare) if we could all be considerate of that and help each other chill out, even if it means not getting our points across. That's seems more important.

I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread ... anyone have any advice on my next lens, or am I good to go???

You seem to have a pretty good kit that covers most everything, unless you are looking for something on the longer end (though the TC will help with that).

If you're looking for something to help your creativity, I've been playing around with a lensbaby recently. It's pretty fun, but definitely taking some practice to get used to (I got the composer pro, as well as the edge 80 optic, double glass, and fisheye).

Thank you, I was hoping someone would say I am on the right track. I have paid attention to the fact that someday I WILL spend the big bucks on a FF, but until then I figured good glass is like buying good real estate ... in other words, its just a great investment.

I have thought about a lensbaby, and it seems like it might be kind of a kick to mess around with.

 

[Jettatore]

what is all your current gear? NM, I saw it a few posts up, I got names confused and missed it. Looks like a great set of stuff already. I just got a 5D Mark 1 for $800, in the mail still, waiting impatiently like a kid 3 days before Christmas eve for it. Might be worth consideration. I'm not upgrading to Mark III until I can assure that it will pay for itself and make me money, and for the gigs I can manage to get in the meantime I will gladly rent that or the Mark II or some other such necessity. I also opted for the 1.4x Mark II extender used, got it I think for $220, I looked at the charts and both had strong and weak points for the single lens I am using it for, the 135, and the difference was so minor that I just grabbed it instead of an off name brand, otherwise I would have waited because I couldn't afford the III if I wanted it and I got this cheaper than the highest rated 3rd party brand. The 3rd party brand would have worked as well on the 16-35 and 24-70 but it would make them f/4 lenses and probably not altogether that useful for my intended kit.

On this page, if you mouse over you will see the difference between the 1.4x mkII and the 1.4xmkIII when hooked to the 135mm f/2L lens.

What I see is the center and midframe are slightly sharper (or at least more contrasty) on the version II but with a slightly different quality to the chromatic abberation reder vs. bluer. The corners appear sharper and less distorted on the mark III. This is probably only going to be used mostly the 7D which uses only the center of the lens, where the mark II actually seems to have a slight, but not ground breaking, edge. I'd be happy with either, but I saved a good bit of cash that should get me a months worth of lodging where I'm headed.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

same type of link but with the settings to the 70-200 IS II, I actually think the MKII looks sharper/contrastier again but with a touch more chromatic ab that should be mostly removable and a bit more distortion that may or may not be easy to fix (perhaps can be well controlled through automation/preset?) The distortion doesn't seem like it would affect most images though, so one might just not even care or ever notice such a thing.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=1

 

[stevenrrmanir]

some of you do not know what the word "invest" means

invest if when you spend $10 today, and after an x amount of time, the value of your initial "deposit" or "investition" or "purchase" increases

camera bodies and lens prices DEPRECIATE in time

purchasing these does NOT constitute an INVESTMENT

they will depreciate in x amount of time

if you really want to invest, purchase silver, gold or precious metals where the cost of these over history continues to increase (even though there may be corrections from time to time)

 

[Viggo]

Is it really fair to compare the price of the spanking new 5d3 at launch to a three year old 5d2 sitting in the shelfs?

Compare launch price and be f@@@ing mad you paid the launch price for the 5d2 when you could've just waited three years and got the 5d3 for almost nothing in between... bah....

 

[Marsu42]

People are upset in here. It would be cool (and rare) if we could all be considerate of that and help each other chill out, even if it means not getting our points across. That's seems more important.

+1 ... the question "what's better for my needs, lenses with an aps-c body or the 5d3" imho is very valid. If there was a Canon Rumors Wiki the advantaged and disadvantages of various combinations could be discussed more structured than grabbing random facts out of the box and throw at the opposing party.

And this is capitalism, after all: Rich or very well-off people should have the best gear, it's great that these people support Canon with the 5d3 so they can release a new aps-c body at a sane price.

However, I think the heated argument from 5d3 owners about the price tells something for itself: It the 5d3 really would be a no-brainer upgrade like with the original 5d2 release price or below, they'd just say: "So whats the problem? Don't get it if you don't want to, but you're not doing yourself a favor". But the fishing for compliments for the 5d3 performance shows to me that Canon didn't do a stellar job here.

 

[idratherplaytennis]

I am sure Canon will not miss me (but will miss the $$$). I sure won't miss their bodies after I sell them!

This quote alone was worth my going from reading this post on my iPhone (and no, not an apple fan boy despite loving my iPhone and iPods, I built my pc from scratch on my own with my own knowledge and everything and refuse to have it any other way, as well as refusing to pay the obscene premium price of their computing products, even if they have amazing displays) and getting on my computer to respond.

First- I don't want to make any arguments (although I so know I am... > but you all have made very valid points. There's only a few considerations to consider. First and foremost, I don't know the exact value of the company, but I know it's easily a multimillion to billion dollar company, and one less person buying their cameras- they won't miss that money, there are hundreds more out there who are interested in them. Secondly, even if you're adjusting for inflation, and taking into effect the depreciated value of the dollar (and to make sense- gas costs more, people are not making that much more than they were when gas was a dollar a gallon cheaper- at least most people are not... and we're in a bigger deficit than ever before...), it's still only 500 dollars more than the intro of the Mark II. I don't know what you make or what everyone's budgets are but I do think you can manage to find a way to cut back for 2-3 weeks on something (food), especially if you live alone and have no family to worry about. Pretty sure living on Top Ramen for 2 weeks- far less than any college student has spent on the stuff, I know- would save you a few hundred in a heart beat. And what do you have to complain about? An excess intake of msg? Exercise more and burn it off

A great post by someone else also posted this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3873.0 about the inflation and the fact that it actually costs less to buy the Mark III than it really should. And because that fanboyism term is thrown around so freely- I'm no fanboy of anything except my soda and beer of choice. If one company makes a superior item to another, be it a tool, a hamburger (okay, fanboy of 3 things, I forgot about In-N-Out), computer parts, whatever it is- I'll buy the superior product if I can afford to, and have a great enough desire to. You have clearly had a poor experience with Canon products, and for that- I'm sorry. It doesn't mean you have to degrade yourself online with the trolls who poke fun, spam and otherwise annoy everyone just to get a rise out of you by posting snide replies to your response, even if you're new to a forum. Just saying- why in the first place are you still here if you're attempting to get out? That's like a smoker trying to quit smoking going to a smokers convention... or Vegas.

And to remain slightly on point to the OP- Nice shot that you got with the lower end glass and a lower end camera. There's no arguing in the value of that. But as someone else stated- just because it's a higher end camera, doesn't mean that the higher end cameras will give a better ratio of perfectly focused shots to attempts made. Just do a search and find the dozens of articles and pros who will agree with that. Why do higher end cameras allow for so many more actuations? Because the pros who use them for a living, shoot that many more pictures. Sure they still have a higher image quality, and the low-light performance is obscene, but the fact remains that it's a bad statistic to choose a camera body by. Trust me, if a pro could get by making more perfect shots with less actuations, and you didn't take the ISO noise, and other image qualities and camera features into account, I mean only went by actuation counts, then the cheaper lens with less actuations would be of more benefit. I'm just saying... and it's just an example..

And lastly, to whoever was talking about sub-L lens primes outperforming some L zooms? Umm, yes. The nature of the beast. A prime has less glass and even one as cheap as the 50 1.8. And yes, many will agree the 1.2 L is not worth it when the 1.4 and 1.8 non L's shoot better and are all below half a grand in cost. But that is comparing apples to oranges. Show me a (16-35L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L) that are outperformed in aperture, image quality or anything else by a sub-L, equivalently ranged zoom. I've already noted and agree the 50L prime is outperformed by sub-L lenses, it's out there, and I'm sure it's the case that there could be some better ones, but what's more important in the long run anyways? Happiness, or an argument that someone who pays more should get better shots? I'm happy with my cheaper as well as my more expensive lenses, upgrading my 20D to a 5D Mark III and being out that much more money. I'm happy with the fact that in the end, it's all just a camera, and ya know what? It all won't matter in another ten years because there will be a NEW equivalent camera to b**** and complain about . So let's all get out and shoot!!!

 

[caMARYnon]

First and foremost, I don't know the exact value of the company, but I know it's easily a multimillion to billion dollar company, and one less person buying their cameras- they won't miss that money, there are hundreds more out there who are interested in them.

I think this is not valid ...you must tell this to Nokia, Kodak, Philips TV etc. We will see Apple's destiny, history was always cyclic, now Apple is on the wave, tomorrow it will be like Nokia maybe, who knows. Any company (big like Canon or not so big like Nikon) must listen to any customer. And I really don't think in this moment (and after the first wave) there are people standing in line to buy 5D3.
I'm sure most of those who upgraded from the original 5D or from crop are really pleased. But those who upgraded from 5D2... I think they are not fully satisfied.

 

[briansquibb]

I believe a 1D4 is better value for money than a 5DIII - especially if you can get a use one.

Different type of camera but if you want a sports camera with top IQ then it is still the current top of the pile

 

[Fishnose]

I believe a 1D4 is better value for money than a 5DIII - especially if you can get a use one.

Different type of camera but if you want a sports camera with top IQ then it is still the current top of the pile

The 1D4 is not even FF.

 

[briansquibb]

I believe a 1D4 is better value for money than a 5DIII - especially if you can get a use one.

Different type of camera but if you want a sports camera with top IQ then it is still the current top of the pile

The 1D4 is not even FF.

So what? The image that comes from it is top rate. 10 fps, top AF, metering at the AF point, AF for f/8 lens, good high ISO images plus all those nice series 1 functions (like manual settings plus exposure control). 5DIII doesn't come near it for sports/birds/wildlife.

 

[caMARYnon]

I believe a 1D4 is better value for money than a 5DIII - especially if you can get a use one.

Different type of camera but if you want a sports camera with top IQ then it is still the current top of the pile

The 1D4 is not even FF.

So what? The image that comes from it is top rate. 10 fps, top AF, metering at the AF point, AF for f/8 lens, good high ISO images plus all those nice series 1 functions (like manual settings plus exposure control). 5DIII doesn't come near it for sports/birds/wildlife.

Agreed

 

[Loswr]

some of you do not know what the word "invest" means

invest if when you spend $10 today, and after an x amount of time, the value of your initial "deposit" or "investition" or "purchase" increases

Quick - tell that to Wall Street and the real estate market. Clearly, they lack your pithy understanding of the word 'invest'.

You might want to include yourself in the 'some of you' group after you read this article indicating that a 'lens price index' has solidly outperformed the major stock market indices over the past several years.