What is the Real Cost of a 5D MK III versus a D800. Math Corrected!

[JR]

Hi Andy, yes I think you missed a few things but in general your observation is correct in that if you are starting brand new the total might be similar (will come back to that in a minute).

For me selling all my glass and buying the Nikon equivalent new would represent a large chunk of money (hence the arm and a leg comment). Next, in your assessment, you forgot to take into account rebate and market price for the lenses. I rarely see the Nikon lens on rebates but there are often plenty of deal on Canon lenses from large dealer. For example my 24L did not cost me $1800, it cost me ~1480 brand new. The 35L cisted ~1200 in december...I paid $1900 for my 70-200, etc...

So to me the Nikon setup does seem more expesenve because I would have to buy everything at list price. Lets face it they both great system and likely depends on the person behind the camera for the final outcome ;D

 

[Abraxx]

Just to give you an idea for other regions.
A quick calculation for Germany, with some "average best" prices on the web today seen in Germany
(all prices plus shipping costs, domestic)

D800 - 2574 EUR
AF-S 24-120mm - 969 EUR
SB-910 - 396 EUR
TOTAL 3939 EUR

5D mark III Kit with 24-105 - 3999 EUR
600EX-RT - 599EUR
TOTAL 4598 EUR

I do not calculate Software in, this is only valid if you start "from scratch", and even if I would add it
its not changing the overall picture.
But to complete it:
NX2 - 145 EUR
Camera Control Pro - 128 EUR
(Personally I have enough, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, DxO OpticsPro, DxO FilmPack & DPP of course)

If I would change the calc to the 24-70, its
Nikkor 1459 EUR vs Canon 2299 EUR! for V2
(V1 is around 1098 EUR though)

I know, thats just a quick look at it, but it shows Canon pricing is unusually higher at the start of the product introduction to the market compared to Nikon! Thats how likely a large number of potential customers are looking at it too.
So there is lots of room to reduce prices in Germany for Canon…

I'm certainly going to wait some time until everything settles…

 

[agierke]

the major flaw i saw in the price comparison is between the 24-70mm lenses.

the nikon does not have IS and hasnt been upgraded in years. a fairer price comparison would be to the previous canon model which would be the following:

24-70mm F2.8, Canon 1400.00, Nikon 1900.00

so that shaves 1000.00 off your canon totals.

i'm fine with the comparison as it is but it should be stated that for a few extra hundred bucks you get ALOT better quality out of the lenses. take into consideration the adjustment for the 24-70mm range and it becomes a no brainer....canon wins hands down in price AND quality of lenses.

 

[Abraxx]

On a side note,

seeing that Nikon is starting to increase pricing in UK, I'm wondering if this is really due to a calculation error they made (at least thats what Nikon officially said)
or
if the demand is really "unprecedented" and they noticed they jumped into the market with a to low pricing (probably expecting Canon to be at a different price point...)

just a thought :

 

[AndysRollei]

agierke wrote:

the major flaw i saw in the price comparison is between the 24-70mm lenses.

The Nikon does not have IS and has not been upgraded in years. A fairer price comparison would be to the previous canon model which would be the following:

24-70mm F2.8, Canon 1400.00, Nikon 1900.00

so that shaves 1000.00 off your canon totals.

I just noticed that I placed "IS II" instead of just "II" in front of the new Canon 24-70 2.8 (the new Canon 24-70 does not have IS), I was thinking IS II for the Canon 70-200 2.8 in the first comparison, sorry. Moreover, I was referring to the best and latest lens in each category, so yes the prices are more even with the Canon 24-70 2.8 I instead of the II.


JR wrote:

I rarely see the Nikon lens on rebates but there are often plenty of deal on Canon lenses from large dealer. For example my 24L did not cost me $1800, it cost me ~1480 brand new. The 35L cisted ~1200 in december...I paid $1900 for my 70-200, etc...

Again I was referring to the new prices from the Manufacturer website but, fair enough as you are probably right about the rebates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a price adjustment with the Canon 24-70 version 1 instead of version 2.

Here is a very comparable set up based solely on cameras and lenses, nothing else, and in US dollars taken from the respective manufacturer's website.

24 1.4, Canon $1800, Nikon $2200

35 1.4, Canon $1500, Nikon $1800

50 1.4, Canon $400 (1.2 $1600), Nikon $450

85 1.2/1.4, Canon 1.2 $2200, Nikon 1.4 $1700.

24-70 2.8, Canon V1 $1400, Nikon $1900

70-200 2.8, Canon IS II $2500, Nikon VRII $2400

Total for Canon lenses is $9,800: Total with 5DM3 body is $13,300

Total for Nikon lenses is $10,450: Total with D800 body is $13,450

Difference of $650 Canon being cheaper ($150 with body, Nikon being cheaper)

And these are supposed to be the best lens in each category, I have not mentioned the Canon 50 1.2, but if included price point would be $11,000 Canon lenses only ($14,500 with 5DM3 body), a difference of $550 ($1050 with bodies included, Nikon being cheaper)

So I guess what I was trying to get at was there really is not a big difference between systems, each has more and less expensive items than the other. I replied mostly because people tend to think Nikon is sooooo much more expensive than Canon when it really is not, if at all.

Andy

 

[agierke]

i can definitely get behind the adjusted price comparison and your conclusion that the systems are comparable in costs.

i would like to add that if you are one that would be/will be investing 10-20k in a camera system then a couple hundred dollars here and there should be of no significance at all. at that level of investment the only things that matter are quality, performance, and reliability.

 

[AndysRollei]

Re: What is the Real Cost of a 5D MK III versus a D800

@prestonpalmer

How is it going, I just came back to this thread and realized it was you lol. This is Andy from MN, the cousin to Elizabeth and Andy Filmore.


agierke wrote:

i can definitely get behind the adjusted price comparison and your conclusion that the systems are comparable in costs.

i would like to add that if you are one that would be/will be investing 10-20k in a camera system then a couple hundred dollars here and there should be of no significance at all. at that level of investment the only things that matter are quality, performance, and reliability.

Glad that we agree! It was my point to say that it really does not matter, a few hundred here or there both are good and both having so similar products that it is sometimes easy to get lost the Nikon vs Canon rants.

Andy