Why pay over the odds for 5D mkiii ??

[Rodknee]

I have ready many of the comments posted on the forums regarding the 5Dmkiii and generally people seem okay to be paying a lot more money for that over the Mkii. I find this really strange when for most all other consumer electronics (which is what it seems it is) people want a better spec for less money, for example, your pc or tv. You would not expect to pay more for a new pc to replace your 3 year old one just because it had a better spec.

It only seems to be in the rarified environment of DSLRs that peole will pay a lot more for a few improvements that were 3 years in the making, Canon must surely love this and Nikon seem to have cottoned on now. Surely some of those improvements (even the ISO) were delivered just by a better processor. In the compact camera market consumers expect improvements in quality with reducing prices otherwise people won't buy the products.

If you disagree then I am sure I can sell you a 1mp digital camera or a pentium processor pc for less than half it's original retail price.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Why do people pay 100K for an Alexa when a 500$ compact records the same resolution?

 

[AvTvM]

i totally agree with the statements in the starting post. The observation is absolutely correct.
DSLRs + lenses are seemingly the one and only product category within consumer electronics for which some people are willing to pay significantly more for only slightly imrpoved specs, rather than demanding much better specs for somewhat less money in every new product generation.

As to the why ... thats up for guesses. Mine are:
* even larger share of irrational "mine is bigger"males vs. female customers than for other CE products
* larger share of "old school" folks, who were "genetically imprinted during the analogue days" to accept "photographic equipment = really expensive" ... and are therefore willing to pay almost any price for photo computers and assorted glass-lumps

 

[danski0224]

Well, I'm not in a rush to "upgrade" my 5DII.

I thought about it, but I could not fathim spending the money on a product that didn't exist.

Now that the camera is out there in the real world, it seems to have some issues.

The 5DII does more than anything I had before it and the image quality is stunning in my eyes. The image improvements apparently are at higher ISO's. There is no real apparent improvement at the other end.

So, I'll wait.

If it takes 4 years to come out with the next one, I'm OK with waiting.

At this point, I'd much rather put the 5DIII equivalent money into a nice big white lens.

I really think the issue with camera gear is the newfound ability to pixel peep and look for flaws. This was not possible in the film days. The average person took the film to the drugstore and had 4 x 6 prints made and maybe some 8 x 10. Times were good.

Now, it is possible for an average person to do 3' x 5' prints (or, pay a printer to do it).

The camera companies are catering to this.

 

[bornshooter]

here we go again people saying the camera has issues and they have just taken it out the box tut tut please use the camera for a month learn how to use it properly then come back saying how bad it is or good.

 

[Loswr]

DSLRs + lenses are seemingly the one and only product category within consumer electronics...

Last time I checked, dSLRs and lenses weren't purely 'electronics' - they have optics, right? Sure, modern cameras depend on electronics, but so do cars, toasters, etc. If I want a car with 6 cylinders instead of 4, or a toaster that toasts 4 slices instead of 2, I expect to pay more. If I want a lens with a faster aperture, or a camera with better build and features, I expect to pay more, too. Have I been brainwashed by Canon's marketing department? No. I just don't always expect that more+better+faster=cheaper.

Regardless, the market will ultimately determine the price. If sales of the 5DIII slow, Canon will drop the price. Simple economics.

 

[smirkypants]

5D2 = Great sensor in a crappy box
5D3 = Better sensor in a great box

Simple.

 

[TexPhoto]

Pro level cameras and lenses are "consumer electronics" only to a small minority of relatively well off people. The average photographer is not shooting their kids birthday with pro dslrs. To think otherwise put you in a smaller group known as "bananas-in-pajamas", or full on nut balls.

But in the end it comes down to manufacturers make what people buy. The market drives development. That does not mean they cater to you as an individual, but it does mean they will keep making $3500 cameras if people buy them faster than they can make them.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

DSLRs + lenses are seemingly the one and only product category within consumer electronics...

Last time I checked, dSLRs and lenses weren't purely 'electronics' - they have optics, right? Sure, modern cameras depend on electronics, but so do cars, toasters, etc. If I want a car with 6 cylinders instead of 4, or a toaster that toasts 4 slices instead of 2, I expect to pay more. If I want a lens with a faster aperture, or a camera with better build and features, I expect to pay more, too. Have I been brainwashed by Canon's marketing department? No. I just don't always expect that more+better+faster=cheaper.

Regardless, the market will ultimately determine the price. If sales of the 5DIII slow, Canon will drop the price. Simple economics.

Yes, but haven't you heard? Sony's making an 8-cylinder Nikon toaster that burns 50,000 pickles in 1/250 second. Unless Canon gets their act together and releases a firmware update that confirms each shot I take with a blow job, I'm going back to shooting Brownies. In the head, with a shotgun.

Seriously, I think it's pretty obvious that all those complaining about how miserable either the 5D or the D800 is don't shoot anything more demanding than a brick wall and think that $4K is a lot of money.

Now, don't get me worng. Lots of photography -- the majority of serious photography, and the overwhelming majority of all photography -- isn't more demanding than shooting brick walls. Street photography, for example, though damned hard artistically, is mostly people in front of brick walls and technically only really needs a Nifty Fifty on a manual camera with some decent black-and-white film. And $4K is a lot of money for most people. Heck, most of the people on the planet don't even spend that much in an entire year.

Modern weddings and sports, on the other hand, to name just a couple examples, need a bit more than HCB's Leica (or the Pentax ME-Super I've got stashed in a closet somewhere), at least if you want to produce what the clients are expecting and willing to pay for. And if you're a professional photographer who's agonizing over the affordability of a $4k purchase (rather than evaluating how long it'll take you to recoup the expenses and turn a profit), you're not going to be a professional photographer much longer. For the non-pros, if you're comfortably middle-class and this is what you spend your money on (as opposed to cruise vacations or big-screen TVs or golf or whatever), it's either not that big a deal (depending on how comfortable your middle-class status is) or you patiently scrimp and save until you've set aside the cash to buy the sniny new toy you've been wanting to play with.

And if all you're doing is whining about how you can't figure out why somebody would speed FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS on a camera that doesn't have some random gimmick you read about in the competition's sales brochure...well, I've got news for all y'all.

The camera is the cheap, disposable part of a photographer's kit.

It's almost an afterthought, really, when it comes right down to it. Most photographers will not only have multiple bodies, but a whole bag full of lenses, and it's not uncommon for at least a couple of those lenses to cost multiple times as much as a single camera, a few of them about as much as a camera, and several of them more than a top-of-the-line point-and-shoot camera.

And then there's the lighting and background equipment, the computer and software, the printer and ink (and not only can the printer cost as much as a 5DIII if you print big enough, but so can a complete set of ink cartridges), the color profiling gear, and on and on and on and on.

This is not a cheap profession / hobby, and whining about the cost of a 5DIII body comes off every bit as silly as somebody wondering if you really have to put high-octane gas in that Ferrari, especially since it gets less than half the mileage of an econobox.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Loswr]

...it's not uncommon for at least a couple of those lenses to cost multiple times as much as a single camera, a few of them about as much as a camera, and several of them more than a top-of-the-line point-and-shoot camera....

Lol. I've got filters that cost more than many top-of-the-line P&S cameras, and my cheapest lens (not counting TCs) costs more than the G1 X, which is a pretty damn expensive P&S...

 

[agierke]

i myself and many others are getting the 5D3 for the improved AF and improved low light capabilities. i didn't even blink at the $3500 price tag. to us its worth every penny and then some.

if you have trouble understanding that this camera is not for you.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

...it's not uncommon for at least a couple of those lenses to cost multiple times as much as a single camera, a few of them about as much as a camera, and several of them more than a top-of-the-line point-and-shoot camera....

Lol. I've got filters that cost more than many top-of-the-line P&S cameras, and my cheapest lens (not counting TCs) costs more than the G1 X, which is a pretty damn expensive P&S...

What, no Plastic Fantastic? I mean, ya gotta admit, it's so small and cheap and light and amazing optically...almost makes the perfect body cap, to be honest.

And does it count if my light meter costs almost as much as the G1 X? I mean, the G1 X not only has a light meter, it's got a camera and a lens as well! And a flash -- so why spend about that much on a big bulky flash to put on top of your 5DIII (which doesn't even have a flash! LOL!!1!)? Speaking of flash, there's my collection of AlienBees....

Cheers,

b&

 

[AvTvM]

the issue is not only the absolute price point of the 5D 3. It is the "PAYING OVER THE ODDS" bit that irks so many of us.

Fact is, the Nikon D800 is a way better photographic tool - with the single exception of shooting speed - for 600 Euros less.

Nikon tried it too ... with the ludicrously overpriced D3x and they hit the wall with it. NOW, all of a sudden, they are able to sell a camera that is way better than the D3x for half the price of the D3 ... we can and should expoect Canon to do the same thing. A camera better than the 1Ds III for half the price of a 1D IV ... wghich would get us to exactly the pricepoint where the D800 sits.

5D 3 is a good camera but after all only offers, what the 5D 2 should have offered from the start: a decent AF module combined with a decent sensor. IQ from ISO100 to 1600 is hardly better than the 5D 2.

3300 Euro for the 5D 3 is exactly 600 Euro too much. Nobody in their right mind should spend 600 Euro for nothing. Even if it still makes some economic sense, because one is TRAPPED by a bigger investment in Canon lenses.

 

[tomscott]

the issue is not only the absolute price point of the 5D 3. It is the "PAYING OVER THE ODDS" bit that irks so many of us.

Fact is, the Nikon D800 is a way better photographic tool - with the single exception of shooting speed - for 600 Euros less.

Nikon tried it too ... with the ludicrously overpriced D3x and they hit the wall with it. NOW, all of a sudden, they are able to sell a camera that is way better than the D3x for half the price of the D3 ... we can and should expoect Canon to do the same thing. A camera better than the 1Ds III for half the price of a 1D IV ... wghich would get us to exactly the pricepoint where the D800 sits.

5D 3 is a good camera but after all only offers, what the 5D 2 should have offered from the start: a decent AF module combined with a decent sensor. IQ from ISO100 to 1600 is hardly better than the 5D 2.

3300 Euro for the 5D 3 is exactly 600 Euro too much. Nobody in their right mind should spend 600 Euro for nothing. Even if it still makes some economic sense, because one is TRAPPED by a bigger investment in Canon lenses.

Have to say I agree with you. As a pro I like to keep my gear as long as possible until it is in dire need of replacement or there is something that completely changes the industry or allows me to shoot something impossible with my previous body. Because the less you spend on bodies the more profit you get from the stills. Obviously when it comes to lenses it is different. Good glass is paramount and what you stick it in front of is much less important. But regardless whether you make money with the camera that £600 is Canon premium, just like Apple over Microsoft.

Yet I still use Canon and Macs because I prefer both to the competition.

A bad craftsman blames his tools. Most pros will be able to get better results with a XXXD than an amateur with an XD. People get too tangled up in specs!!! Just go out and shoot!! Half the people on this forum buy the cameras so they can shoot test sheets to see how well or poorly the camera performs which is a huge shame. This forum used to be full of decent people who were good photographers now it has turned full circle.

What the pro cameras offer compared to the amateur ones is all the complex settings that allow you to do things faster and more efficiently. Also better layout, ergonomics, higher quality build using them all day long you need these things. I no a lot of pros who shoot only on APC and get incredible results. Its just when they come to blow things up they have problems.

The rest is Apples and Oranges.

I used to contribute a fair amount earlier on to the forum but half the people on here make me so fed up of reading the forum! Same old BS.

This 5D MKIII thing has got out of hand and I hope the moderators sort it out. The camera has been out no time at all stop whining.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I think that one point is missed by the argument that we are "trapeed" by investment is Canon glass. Personally, I don't feel trapped at all. One of the biggest reasons I shoot Canon is in fact their lens selection. And the bottom line is that for me the D800 doesn't offer anything worth missing on the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and MPE65 for example. Regardless of price. And I am positive that many feel the same.

 

[AvTvM]

I think that one point is missed by the argument that we are "trapeed" by investment is Canon glass. Personally, I don't feel trapped at all. One of the biggest reasons I shoot Canon is in fact their lens selection. And the bottom line is that for me the D800 doesn't offer anything worth missing on the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and MPE65 for example. Regardless of price. And I am positive that many feel the same.

you are making a good point here.

On the other hand ... I might actually prefer the new Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 over the Canon 50/1.2.
And the 85/1.2 II is a Canon treat, but the Nikon 85/1.4 is no slouch either.
As for the MPE65 I don't know whether or not there is a Nikon equivalent.

But there is no equivalent Canon WA-zoom (or prime) to compete with the Nikon 14-24. The 16-35 does not even come close. It remains to be seen whether the new Canon prime 24mm/2.8 will beat the Nikon zoom and if so, by how much.

The new Canon 24-70 II may be better than the current Nikon 24-70, which is slightly better than the current Canon version. And the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS II is slightly better than the Nikon which seems to sufffer fairly heavily from lens breathing.

The two lens types where Canon has the upper hand are the new super-Teles and the new TS-E lenses (17/4, 24/2.8). Worse still, on the D800 the Nikon PCs tilt-shifts won't even work (!) - due to extremely poor design they will not clear the D800 body when trying to shift them upwards. -o-O-

So mileage will vary, depending on lenses needed and used.

 

[Loswr]

As for the MPE65 I don't know whether or not there is a Nikon equivalent.

...on the D800 the Nikon PCs tilt-shifts won't even work (!) - due to extremely poor design they will not clear the D800 body when trying to shift them upwards.

No, there is nothing in the Nikon lineup like the MP-E 65mm. As for the PC-E lenses, I wonder if Nikon shooters who depend on them are still proclaiming the virtures of having a popup flash?

 

[AvTvM]

No, there is nothing in the Nikon lineup like the MP-E 65mm.

Thanks.

As for the PC-E lenses, I wonder if Nikon shooters who depend on them are still proclaiming the virtures of having a popup flash?

While it is totally crazy, that Nikon f*cked up so badly on this one in the D800 (and possibly the D4 as well!), as a 7D user I continue to sing the praise of a master-trigger-capable pop-up flash.

It should be no problems to integrate a pop-up flash into a freakin' BIG DSLR the size of a D800 (or 5D III) in such a way that TS-lenses can clear it in any position.

I will not buy a camera without integrated, master-capable flash, UNLESS it has a built-in radio-flash-trigger with more functionality than a 600EX-RT or ST-E3-RT ... specifically it also needs to have 2nd curtain sync over the air.

 

[prestonpalmer]

...it's not uncommon for at least a couple of those lenses to cost multiple times as much as a single camera, a few of them about as much as a camera, and several of them more than a top-of-the-line point-and-shoot camera....

Lol. I've got filters that cost more than many top-of-the-line P&S cameras, and my cheapest lens (not counting TCs) costs more than the G1 X, which is a pretty damn expensive P&S...

+1!!!