# Is the 5DIII the New 50D?



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

Robert Welch said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

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 (Jun 14, 2012)

preppyak said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What differentiates the 5DIII from the 50D is the target market.
> ...



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


----------



## scotthillphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

Well when I switched to Canon I bought a 50D, then bought a 7D, then bought a 5D3 and sold the 50D. I shot a TON of sports and the 50D could just not handle it at all I feel like there was a BIG improvement with the 50D vs the 7D, but it was what I used it for... So in the end it comes down to what you shoot and what you need. I shoot a wide variety of stuff and need a great AF system and the 7D is the best for the price and the 5D3 is the best behind the 1Dx.....


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

I think the 5D3 is a cut-down 1Dx but retains too much of the price tag. It really should have been 2799$ at release.


----------



## aznable (Jun 14, 2012)

the 5dmk3 costs a lot as the nikon D800...do you think $3000 (€2900) are a gift compared to $3500 (€3200).

both cameras are really expensive and both manufactors listened to their customers


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

aznable said:


> the 5dmk3 costs a lot as the nikon D800...do you think $3000 (€2900) are a gift compared to $3500 (€3200).
> 
> both cameras are really expensive and both manufactors listened to their customers



500$ could buy me more RAM to run lightroom 4, A copy of Lightroom 4 to go with my 5D3, and Windows 7 Pro to run my new workflow. 500$ is a big deal because new camera can change workflows and workflows cost more $$$.


----------



## traveller (Jun 14, 2012)

I think the danger for Canon is that this (strongly) rumoured D600 could end up looking quite close in key specifications to the 5D MkIII, for substantially less money. This would move Canon's full frame line-up into the same position as their APS-C line-up, where lots of people are unclear as to which models in each manufacturers' range are meant to be equivalent (even without Sony's rumoured new FF SLTs muddying the waters). I've seen the D7000 compared to the 7D plenty of times and the D90 used to be regularly compared to the 50D.


----------



## aznable (Jun 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > the 5dmk3 costs a lot as the nikon D800...do you think $3000 (€2900) are a gift compared to $3500 (€3200).
> ...



i am not saying there isnt a gap in price, i am saying they are both expensive…here in italy the gap is narrower, but i think those hardware are for pro photographers and maybe for some amateurs not mass market for sure
.
with 300€ i can buy cigarettes for 40 days


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

aznable said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > aznable said:
> ...



Even if we're pro, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be mindful of our expense's.


----------



## GDub (Jun 14, 2012)

rcarca said:


> 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.



DITTO! Hem and haw, debate the merits, compare and contrast, pixel gaze, on and on... Bottom line is the 5DM3 is a GREAT camera. I LOVE my 5DM3!!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 15, 2012)

I want to buy a 50D anyone got one they are selling?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I want to buy a 50D anyone got one they are selling?



Oh shut up and just get a 7D


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I want to buy a 50D anyone got one they are selling?
> ...



people are still asking retarded prices for used 7D's :

I want it for some specific timelapse project stuff coming up I dont want to burn through the shutters of my good gear so I'm chasing a decent used 50D to just punch these out,

maybe a 40D but again I think the used market here are on crack with the prices they are chasing

maybe i should just get a new 550D i'm just worried about the buffer on a rebel not keeping up :-\


----------



## jeffabbyben (Jun 15, 2012)

Wickedwombat-Actually I have an excellent condition low use 50D. I was going to trade it in to B&H but they only offered $300. I figured I would just keep it. I am now owner of a 5D mark ii and Mark iii (and an old rebel) so don't need the 50D. Just sayin if you are interested


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 15, 2012)

I think Canon knows exactly what they are doing in Regards to the 5D3's high price point.

At this price level, they aren't really competing with Nikon. The real competition between those brands is with point & shoots and entry level DSLRs.

What they are succeeding in doing is keeping the 5D2 relevant. A $3,000 5D3 would have seriously killed 5D2 sales at a < 1K difference. Wasn't the D700 discontinued?

When the 5D2 is discontinued and sold through, the 5D3 has the potential to come down a bit.

Then Canon can slot in another DSLR below the 5D3.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 15, 2012)

dmj said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



This is the smartest thing I've heard in a while. Totally true... The 5DMIII is the real successor to the D700! 

I have a 50D and love it. I know the 40D is a good camera, but the 50D really isn't enough for a true upgrade. I think that's where the 5DIII is at. If you have a 5DII, wait for the 5DIII to come down in price or wait for the next model.

My question is: now that the 5DMKII street price is about $1800, why come out with an Entry-Level FF? Give the II the III body shape and slightly improved internals at $2000, I buy that... If that happens before August. Great. Otherwise, I'll happily be clicking away on the III.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 15, 2012)

RGomezPhotos said:


> I have a 50D and love it. I know the 40D is a good camera, but the 50D really isn't enough for a true upgrade. I think that's where the 5DIII is at. If you have a 5DII, wait for the 5DIII to come down in price or wait for the next model.



50% increase in MP wasnt enough of an upgrade?
AFMA plus the other stuff it got
many might say not getting video wasnt a bad thing either


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 15, 2012)

The 50D was my first DSLR in late 2008, to which I added a used 40D as backup.

I then got a 5Dc as well for weddings

Then upgraded the 5Dc with a 5DII (2010) and the 50D with two 7DII(2010). Wasn't happy with the IQ of the 7D so replaced one with the 1D4 (2011)

I upgraded the 5DII with the 1DS3(2011)

I have found that good L lens meant really good photos. The 40D with the 400 f/2.8 was a real eye opener and started my move to top lens as a priority.

I have had the 24-105 since 2006 and the 135 since 2007

I gave my 40D to a friend earlier this year who is still using it to produce beatifull urban landscapes in Cornwall, UK

Having run the 40D and 50D alongside each other I found that there was little difference in prints to A4 and I would have found it difficult to upgrade to the 50D - I would have waited and then gone to the 7D

The 5Dc to the 5DII upgrade was a no brainer and exactly the right thing to do. However looking at the 5DIII specs there was little that grabbed me to say 'upgrade'. If I hadn't had a 7D/1D4 I might have upgraded for the extra fps - the AF wasn't an issue - I also had a lot of f/2.8 or faster lens which rather benefited the 5DII AF

I have to confess that if I see a good value 5DII with grips I might get it as a backup to the 1DS3


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 50D and love it. I know the 40D is a good camera, but the 50D really isn't enough for a true upgrade. I think that's where the 5DIII is at. If you have a 5DII, wait for the 5DIII to come down in price or wait for the next model.
> ...



Nope. I know many 40D owners and they love 'em. For the stuff they shot, it was great.


----------



## traveller (Jun 15, 2012)

aznable said:


> with 300€ i can buy cigarettes for 40 days



Why do you think I've given up smoking? It's a great incentive -just put the money you would have spent into your gear fund!


----------



## aznable (Jun 15, 2012)

traveller said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > with 300€ i can buy cigarettes for 40 days
> ...



yes you are right, but i am too weak


----------



## preppyak (Jun 15, 2012)

dilbert said:


> If the translucent mirror gives the A99 a frame rate approaching 10fps with 24mp at the rumored price of around $2500 - $2800, then the 5D Mark III becomes even harder to justify at $3499.


Well, the whole EVF v optical viewfinder is still kind of a big deal. I still haven't seen an EVF that makes the camera worth it...both between killing the battery life and making it hard to see in less than ideal conditions (things that matter to full frame users).


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 15, 2012)

preppyak said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If the translucent mirror gives the A99 a frame rate approaching 10fps with 24mp at the rumored price of around $2500 - $2800, then the 5D Mark III becomes even harder to justify at $3499.
> ...



Not to meantion the pellicle mirror blocking 1/3 of the light reaching the sensor, so the camera is always going to be at a disadvantage. 

Here's a news flash Canon isn't behind in sensor technology. DXOMark is not a reliable source, time and time again, their data doesn't jive with real world output, and often contradicts itself. Case in point, the Canon 5D Mk III matches or outscores the Nikon D800 on the screen scores for ISO Sensitivity, SNR 18%, Tonal Range, and Color Sensitivity, yet for some reason the Nikon D800 has a massive Dynamic Range advantage? My understanding that all of those other scores are necessary components that would give the camera its dynamic range. It just doesn't add up!


----------



## chimpmitten (Jun 15, 2012)

As a 50D owner, I would say that yes, for me the 5DIII is (hopefully soon) the new 50D.

The 50D was my introduction to DSLRs and I purchased it along with a 28mm 1.8 and a 85mm 1.8 with the goal of shooting indoor sports (mainly roller derby) and concerts (cramped bars and classical). It was at the right price point for me and I felt that the frame rate would work well for sports and the silent shooting mode when using live view would work well for the classical concerts. The fast lenses worked well in the dim lighting, but after about a year I purchased some flashes and soon after the stars aligned and I was able to acquire a 70-200mm 2.8 ii.

When I purchased it the Nikon D90 was another option for me, but after handling both cameras the 50D just felt better. I could see myself shooting all day with it in my hands, while the Nikon felt cramped. I had no interest in video at that time so the 50d was a perfect fit. The new features it had worked great for me and I didn't feel that I was missing out on much at the amount that I was spending.

I've been bumping up against the limitations of the 50D and the 5Diii looks to be a good upgrade for me. The silent shooting mode through the view finder looks to be a big improvement over using the live view of the 50D. It has a similar frame rate, but with a much improved auto focus and I can use all of my lenses on full frame. Plus after just having the weather sealing on the 50D fail on me in the middle of a schutzhund trial the 5D will also be a big improvement in this regard (or I could just learn not to stand in the rain).

The only downside is the cost and that I would want more lenses and the battery grip to go with it. At the moment probably the new 40mm 2.8 and the 2x iii extender; so that I could have field of views similar to the 28mm and 70-200mm on the 50d.

My 50D did recover from its jaunt in the rain and attached is a 100% crop from one of the photos that almost led to its demise.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 15, 2012)

unfocused said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I see your point, but, I really think this topic will need way more time and data to tell the story in full. For a while, those that were complaining about DR in the mk3 vs the d800 kept bringing the amazon top sellers list, highlighting the fact that the d800 was ahead of the mk3 in sales.

Well, the tables have turned - http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

mk3 at the 7 and d800 at 8. Which is pretty incredible considering that the top six DSLR's in sales at amazon are all under $1100. The fact that either are putting up these kind of numbers against lower priced consumer grade bodies is quite outstanding.

So while this could be a 'maybe,' we need to see what happens after a full year of these new bodies on the market. 

Remember this too - its not all about the specs. Think of the free marketing both canon and nikon have - if the world at large see all of our images - us, the people shooting on the gear, and the difference is neglible in terms of IQ to the viewer (sad fact is, a whole lot of our hard work goes right out the window unless your clients are very IQ sensitive. The standard wedding or portrait client won't be as discerning. But we won't let that stop us from doing our best to make people say WOW!!!!).... If the world see's tons of WOW images, and the world see's taken on a mkiii, or d800, or the more generic, canon, nikon...if the world sees great images, the world will think I want a new cam...if the bulk of WOW is nikon, they buy nikon and nikon wins, same for canon. 

Sum it up though...I just don't think any of us can make this call this early in the game. Give it a year, then revisit...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo,

Basically, I don't think we are in disagreement. Like you, I've been amazed at how well these two cameras (one at $3,000 and one at $3,500) have been selling when compared to much lower priced models. I just checked the Amazon list and both are in the top 50 for *all *cameras and photo, which includes point and shoots. And, this at a time when the economy is still struggling. 

I was simply speculating on the sustainability, given what appear to be some pretty significant market pressures that may be just around the corner (Pressures, by the way, that are self-inflicted by these two companies if they really do elect to release low-cost full frame models.)

I enjoy watching the competitive market work, observing how companies react and trying to guess where the market and companies may go next. Most product releases are pretty predictable. And, Canon and Nikon have traditionally released products that are remarkably similar at virtually identical price points. The 5DIII and D800 seemed to break that pattern. Did one of the companies make a mistake? Only time will tell. I just enjoy watching and trying to figure it all out.


----------



## TotoEC (Jun 16, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I was simply speculating on the sustainability, given what appear to be some pretty significant market pressures that may be just around the corner (Pressures, by the way, that are self-inflicted by these two companies if they really do elect to release low-cost full frame models.)



I don't seem to find any correlation of what you've stated vesus the title of your post: "Is the 5DIII the New 50D?"


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 16, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo,
> ...



This is the start of a D600 vs 5DIII thread hijak where Canon are stated as money grabbing with inferor products


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> TotoEC said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


i'm really disappointed that you forgot to mention the substandard DR of canon and blah blah blah

yeah its all getting a bit old isn't it?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 16, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > TotoEC said:
> ...



Indeed.

I am waiting for the naughty forty to arrive on Monday - then I should be able to use the 7D as a street camera. 

I do agree about the 5DIII getting a bad name, but it seems mostly to be based on forums with a large North American group of users. UK based sites are all singing its praises, even with the odd hitch here and there - they dont seem to care about the light leak as it didn't impact their images

My 5DIII owning friend had to send his back to Canon for 'adjustment'. Took 4 days to do (from posting to return). He is now producing stunning pictures with it. His pictures with a large white show just how good it really is - I would say basic IQ is as good as the 1DS3 (although I still prefer the 1DS3 colour rendition and low noise at iso 50-200)

He upgraded from a 50D - and is blown away by it.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 16, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Chuck Alaimo,
> 
> Basically, I don't think we are in disagreement. Like you, I've been amazed at how well these two cameras (one at $3,000 and one at $3,500) have been selling when compared to much lower priced models. I just checked the Amazon list and both are in the top 50 for *all *cameras and photo, which includes point and shoots. And, this at a time when the economy is still struggling.
> 
> ...



Under this kind of logic, the d800 faces the same potential irrelevancy. How will a brand new cheap FF affect the market? Whether its nikon or canon, if the sub $2000 FF hits the market and the IQ isn't half bad, and that cam has a nikon name tag on it, then you should be more worried about the d800 becoming nikons 50D. 

Either way, my original statement stands --- too soon to tell. If we ARE to judge this on a here and now level, the mkiii is currently ranked 4th in dslr sales at amazon - and that is far from being irrelevant.


----------

