# Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value



## distant.star (Apr 20, 2012)

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate; if so, so be it. Maybe I value my dollars differently than others. Anyway, I've decided I can't justify 3500 Tracy dollars for the 5D3.

As I said here several times before the 5D2 successor showed up, rather than speculating/hoping/fantasizing, I would wait to see what Canon offered, then make a decision about what to do. After limping along for two years with T2i limitations, I knew I wanted an affordable tool that would provide 5D2 image quality and low-light capabilities with 7D or better autofocus speed and versatility.

The new 5D3 has delivered exactly what I want. Low-light capability seems at least marginally improved and the AF is all I would ever need. Despite hearing some whining about sensor capabilities, dynamic range, etc., I suspect Canon realizes this sensor produces image quality better than what a large percentage of users actually need or can use. It surely produces images that satisfy me. So, from a practical standpoint, the 5D3 is my ideal camera.

Only Canon knows why they've priced the 5D3 as they have. I can speculate along with everyone else, but the improvements over the 5D2 don't warrant the additional cost for me. I can see a wedding photographer biting his lip and paying the extra money because the critical improvements give him reasonable value. There may be some other businesses that see it as a reasonable (affordable -- and also available) alternative to the new 1Dx. So, for me, I've decided on my own current solution. It's the 7D with some lens upgrades.

The plan that's evolved as a cheaper 5D3 solution for me is this:

1. Replace the T2i with a new 7D.

2. Upgrade (my interpretation) my walkaround lens from the 15-85mm to a 17-55mm.

3. Upgrade my 70-200 f/4.0L to a 70-200 f/4.0L IS.

4. Get a 10-22mm for the wide side.

I've got an ef-s 60mm that's adequate for macro, but I'll keep it mostly for the non-macro look it provides. I don't know what it is, but that has become a favorite lens for landscape type shots. I'll keep my 135mm f/2.0L for serious headhunting, and I'll keep the 100-400L for the great reach.

This also allows me to sell the EOS-1V as I won't need it for the great AF. Yesterday I was shooting around town with the T2i in one hand and the 1V in the other (with the 70-200) and it's speed is nothing short of joy. The contrast between the two helped make this decision.

One reason I got the T2i initially was that it was the cheapest entry to a decent digital camera. It has virtually the same sensor as the 7D, so if you can sacrifice the upscale capabilities of the 7D you can work with a T2i and good lenses. Here's an image that makes that case for me:









That was taken yesterday with the T2i and has all the IQ I'd ever realistically need. However that is one of perhaps 50 I took of gulls flying around me. The AF simply can't do the job; this shot just got lucky. With a 7D, this shot won't require luck -- or a one out of fifty keeper ratio. And as I've often said, for street photography, by the time the T2i gets it together, the shot is gone. I saw that again yesterday with the lightning speed of the 1V. Even using film, as soon as the shutter button is actuated, the shot is made.

Anyway, perhaps this will help others wrestling with the 5D3 pricing. If you're thinking about Nikon, well that's a different issue!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 20, 2012)

Makes sense to me.

But then, I have zero interest in a full frame at this point and I'm simply looking forward to what Canon will offer in the 7DII to entice me to upgrade.

Not sure about your lens choices however. Just a few random thoughts. 

Are you keeping the 15-85? You won't gain any sharpness with the 17-55 f2.8, just aperture. Be aware of what you are losing at the wide and long ends. 

Give some thought as to whether or not 200mm is long enough for you. One reason I'll never give up APS-C is I'm too spoiled by the reach of the crop sensor. The 70-300 "L" is overpriced and you'll lose a stop at the long end, but people who buy it seem to love it.

I passed on the 10-22 and went instead for the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's interesting, but among the three wide angle zooms (Tokina, Sigma and Canon) most reviewers and real world users acknowledge that all three are really high quality lenses. It's one of the few cases where the name-brand lens really doesn't have any advantage over the third party competitors. Just saying: don't be afraid to look at the Tokina and Sigma in this range. (I chose the Tokina for its 2.8 aperture. Just pick which one best suits your use and budget.)

Finally, if you are going with the 7D and you are in the U.S. be sure to check out the Canon Refurb store.


----------



## UrbanImages (Apr 20, 2012)

As I shoot full frame, the 5D3 does interest me, but not right now. I will have one, but when it comes to "new and improved" tech, I tend to take a 6-9 month breather for bugs to be worked out/price and demand drop etc. I currently shoot with a 5D2, and I just picked up a 7D used with <150 actuations. That replaced a 60D which I found to be a glorified Rebel. I also have a mint condition 40D as the backup camera. 

I tend to put more stock in the glass, that coupled with creativity can go a lot further than the "latest and greatest". That being said, the low light capabilities of the 5D3 is what is driving me. As far as the pixels are concerned, I feel that Canon is improving what they need to improve and not falling prey to the hunger for more pixels. IMHO, I suspect that Canon may be using the 5D3 as a test for all of the better components outside of MP's to perfect those before hitting a grand slam with a new high MP camera. ;D 

As far as the 7D, I am beyond happy with it thus far. I find that the photography that I do has a place for both FF and crop. The AF system is quick and the image quality is excellent. You will not be disappointed. While the sensors may be similar, the other components help round a winning camera.


----------



## azizjhn (Apr 20, 2012)

Same here i wish to upgrade my T2i to 7DII but i dont know when it will be release. The reasons is 8FPS since i shoot RC cars and normal cars drifting and wireless flash trigger because i dont like to attach any thing to the camera and the weather sealing.

5D MK III looks like the dream camera with nightmarish price, i hope they add the timelapse feature & in camera HDR to the 7DII every thing else is ok with me except low light performance sure it will be enhanced with Digic 5.

Good luck for every one ;D


----------



## KevinB (Apr 20, 2012)

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 !!


----------



## Jason Beiko (Apr 20, 2012)

My current gear is a 7D with 17-55, 10-22 and 70-200L 2.8 IS lenses all from Canon. I was seriously considering upgrading to FF, but like you, just don't see the value in the upgrade to a 5D MarkIII despite the fact that it is, by all accounts, a great camera. I mostly shoot landscape shots on a tripod at iso 100 so I'm not sure I'm going to see a major improvement. If Canon brings to market a new FF camera with improved DR and IQ (perhaps a D800E equivalent), then I might switch. 

I'm in no rush only having picked up photography a year ago. I still have lots to read and my current shots are limited more by my knowledge and experience versus equipment. Peter Lik is still safe...at least for awhile


----------



## bp (Apr 20, 2012)

The 3 is not for everyone. Frankly, I've always advised people to invest heavily in glass before investing heavily in bodies. 

You'll LOVE the 7D's AF and framerate


----------



## tron (Apr 21, 2012)

What you say is reasonable. The only problem is you get a lot of APS-C equipment (another camera, lenses) If I were you I would dare to get 5DIII with 24-105 (after selling the T2i with 15-85)

I had a 40D. When it was stolen (unfortunately with many lenses) I got the 5DII with 24-105. So for me 5DIII is a lesser upgrade and I cannot justify it. But you reminded me that I can have the very good AF for distant shots by getting the 7D (or waiting for a 7DII)


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 21, 2012)

I like your logic. I think the 5D3 price is just high right now. It will come down over time. It has awesome physical and functional improvements over the 5D2 if the spec sheets have anything to say. Autofocus, some ISO/sensor improvement, high FPS, weather sealing/build quality, built in peace of mind dual write functionality for pro's at a live event, and a mode lock dial that I wish it didn't have... It seems a very great camera, and a very solid value to active professionals who profit from photography even if you already have a 5DII or a 1D series and are using it as a waiting room stool for the 1DX. The features in this camera can make a pro's life easier/more profitable. So some combination of super comfortable shoes/an investment that pays for itself by saving you even more time.


----------



## smithy (Apr 21, 2012)

distant.star said:


> I saw that again yesterday with the lightning speed of the 1V. Even using film, as soon as the shutter button is actuated, the shot is made.


That's one of the reasons why I still use the 1V. It's an awesome, awesome camera. 

As for your lens choices, I do strongly recommend the 10-22mm if you are planning on keeping a crop body for a long time. I augmented my lens collection with this piece last year, and couldn't believe I had survived without it for so long. Although now that I'm about to go full frame (to what exactly, I don't know), I'm looking at getting a 17-40mm f/4.0L, which is an equivalent (and the same price as the 10-22mm).


----------



## solarpos (Apr 21, 2012)

solid plan


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 21, 2012)

I have only had my 5DIII for a week, but I can tell you that it is by far a huge step above the 7D. I've had a 7D for almost a year, and a 60D for over a year. The 5DIII knocks both out of the park. Low light capability on the 7D is atrocious. Low light situations do not produce good results. Many refer to the 7D as a great sports camera, and I'm sure it is during the daytime. But if you are indoors, the best you can do is ISO 1600 with a lot of noise reduction in post. You can't use super fast shutter speeds, even with faster f/2.8 lenses. 

So far, the 5DIII can focus in very dark situations where the 7D can't. It can also give useable results at ISO 6400. As I said in some other post, the 5DIII is certainly worth it to me. Maybe it isn't to you, but you should know that it really is a great camera. I suggest you rent one for a week and see what you think.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 21, 2012)

I have been a Canon shooter for about 15 years. Canon film, Rebel, now with the 40D since 2008. The upgrades coming from Canon have been incremental and minor. Nikon a few years ago went big time with upgraded bodies. I still don't see the value in upgrading from 40D to 7D. Sure the body is nicer, but not worth it. The 5D MKIII is a failure. The ones who bit and paid that much money for it have to justify and auto convince themselves that it is worth it. Not in my books. I will be selling my lenses, don't have any L glass, but a number of mid-of-the-road ones and primes. Will be getting rid of Canon because even their flagship 5D MKIII is a half-asses upgrade over the 5D MKIII at a very high price. Why can't they do things right and get us some nice bodies like Nikon does? We don't have another 100 years to wait around! I don't carry about brands, but quality and price!


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 21, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > I have been a Canon shooter for about 15 years. Canon film, Rebel, now with the 40D since 2008. The upgrades coming from Canon have been incremental and minor. Nikon a few years ago went big time with upgraded bodies. I still don't see the value in upgrading from 40D to 7D. Sure the body is nicer, but not worth it. The 5D MKIII is a failure. The ones who bit and paid that much money for it have to justify and auto convince themselves that it is worth it. Not in my books. I will be selling my lenses, don't have any L glass, but a number of mid-of-the-road ones and primes. Will be getting rid of Canon because even their flagship 5D MKIII is a half-asses upgrade over the 5D MKIII at a very high price. Why can't they do things right and get us some nice bodies like Nikon does? We don't have another 100 years to wait around! I don't carry about brands, but quality and price!
> ...



Exactly the response I was thinking. Love how his first post is to complain about a camera that he doesn't even own. I don't think anyone who has purchased a 5DIII has anything to justify. They already justified it by purchasing it.


----------



## smithy (Apr 21, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> You two jokers, NWPhil and stevenrrmanir, are pathetic!


Why are you calling yourself pathetic?


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 21, 2012)

Sorry, but I'm only an Apple fanboy. And even then I'm not religious about it.

Please hurry up and sell your gear so that others can benefit from it and leave this forum then. If you despise Canon so much, what use do you have here?


----------



## Orion (Apr 21, 2012)

5DmkIII is AMAZING!

I tried my best to look at sensor scores from within the camera, but couldn't find them. AF is freakin amazing (a beast!) ISO is AMAZING! FF too!

GOD I miss the old film masters . . . if they were part of this forum, they would tell some a thing or 2 about sensor scores and what to do with them.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 21, 2012)

smithy said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > You two jokers, NWPhil and stevenrrmanir, are pathetic!
> ...



sure, are we all not pathetic? 

not my fault - technology's fault!

I am not a fanboy of Canon, Nikon, Apple, iPad, uPad, etc...

I don't own Apple's Chinese junk... 

I tend to have my own preferences for technology based on more than marketing. I really don't have time and don't intend to write anymore. 

My intention was to support the original poster, that yes, the 5D MKIII is insufficient for what it is at that price.

If you think it is worth it, be my guest and buy as many as you can! Only fanboys go into my toy is better than yours... whatever people... keep going at it!


----------



## rocketdesigner (Apr 21, 2012)

bp said:


> The 3 is not for everyone. Frankly, I've always advised people to invest heavily in glass before investing heavily in bodies.



Speaking as someone who has the "lowly" t2i and a 60D (which someone described in this thread as a glorified rebel), I am trying to follow the above advice.

I own the 16-35 2.8L II, 24-105 f4 IS L, and just picked up the 70-200 2.8 L II from the refurb store when it was 20% off.

Also the 50mm 1.4, rather that the 1.2 L (due to its reputation as sharper than the 1.2 at wide apertures, up to f8).

Soon will be grabbing the 1.4 teleconverter for the 70-200.


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 21, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> smithy said:
> 
> 
> > stevenrrmanir said:
> ...




And like you, I was trying to explain to the original poster what my experience was. Since I *actually own* a 7D, I can speak from experience with it. The 5DIII is so much better than the 7D in so many ways. Perhaps it's not the huge jump above a 5DII, which may be fine for the OP. The 7D has its own issues, and he should be aware of them.


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

KevinB said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

rocketdesigner said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

snowweasel said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

snowweasel said:


> rocketdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Jettatore said:
> ...



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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 [email protected]@@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 (Apr 21, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

idratherplaytennis said:


> _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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2012)

Fishnose said:


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



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 (Apr 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


Agreed


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> 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.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Actually, when studying economy I was told that as a private individual, you cannot invest at all - only consume or save. The only entities that can "invest" are businesses, I guess being a freelance pro photog counts as such. While that of course is pure nomenclature, it reminded me of not being too smart when economic theory clashes with real world discussions.


----------



## solarpos (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > some of you do not know what the word "invest" means
> ...




ZING!


----------



## psolberg (Apr 22, 2012)

5DII owner and see no reason to upgrade at all. 90% convinced I'll be shooting a D800 this summer based on how things are going (assuming I can even buy one since demand has left none anywhere in the continental US)


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2012)

I find it impossible to loose as I invest in memories...


----------



## preppyak (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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


Ha, or to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost money in the stock market for that matter. They might also call it "throwing money away", but, it's investing as well. It's only the expectation of growth that constitutes investing, "successful investing" would be those who made money.

Gotta say, a camera is much better than most other big ticket items in holding price. My TV is worthless 3 years from now, my car is worth at best half the price, I couldn't give away my smartphone to a homeless person...the list goes on.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 22, 2012)

What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera. I did upgrade from the 5D2 to the 5D3 and absolutely find it to be worth it. The shots that I will take in the next few years that I could not have taken without the 5D3's AF or high ISO quality will easily pay for it.

Stop looking at the numbers. Go out there and actually try to camera before commenting on it.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't find it surprising at all:
* people who decide 5D3 is worth the upgrade, buy one
* people who decide it's not, stick to their old camera or switch to the D800, so they don't own a 5D3

the question is: how many people are there of each kind?
looking at the dxomark and dpreview results, and at the sales numbers at amazon, I have my guess
(and yes, I know it's out of stock; but given how few cameras are actually sold, that only tells me Canon has manufacturing issues, not that demand is high)


----------



## kennykodak (Apr 22, 2012)

i bought a 5d3. is it perfect, no. but it is much improved over the 5D2. i didn't buy it for an investment, i would collect old Leica's if that was my goal. i use it as a full time photographer. it is a tool in my toolbox that i felt would make my life easier. two card slots and enhanced focus points was enough for me. i bought my first Canon in '72 (F-1). i bought my first Nikon six months later (F2). it's insane to have both systems and the "my dog is bigger than your dog" game has never changed. i also use digital Hasselblad, and it is no way an investment. my point, if it feels good, works well and is reliable use it. new cameras are like new cars, they depreciate while sitting on the lot. i don't need a Shelby to get the groceries.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera.



There is always a bias in evaluations of lenses and camera bodies. Of course there is a negative "I cannot afford it and am envious" negative bias. But if you'd wish that only people that have tried (i.e. owned) the object for an extended time, there is a positive bias just as people mostly say their holiday was great even when it was raining 24/7. The amount of people who bought it and don't think it's "not worth it" should be near zero because it's a contradiction in itself.

In addition to that, "worth" is relative because it can be a) "worth relative to buying lenses for $3500" or b) "worth" relative to one's income or savings.

I think it is valid to make up one's mind based on tech specs, iq comparisons and reading many reviews, and I don't think having something in your hand magically adds something to this apart from the fact that all current dslr bodies are "good and fun to shoot with".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Gotta say, a camera is much better than most other big ticket items in holding price. My TV is worthless 3 years from now, my car is worth at best half the price, I couldn't give away my smartphone to a homeless person...the list goes on.



Very true. A six-year-old, well used 5D can still be sold for close to $1K, which is a third of its original value, and from a business accounting standpoint, it would be a fully depreciated asset by now.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera.
> ...



Properly done reviews are useful, but nothing takes the place of actually trying it out for yourself. It's kind of like reading a review on a new Ferrari. Sure, I can read a review and make a call whether it's worth it, but ultimately if I need to know what the car is truly like I need to get inside one and drive it.

I read quite a bit of info and looked at a lot of sample images of the 5D3 before mine arrived, but there's a big difference between seeing someone else's ISO 12800 shots and examining your own. Only when you integrate the camera into your professional workflow can you truly see how well the camera fits you.

Keep in mind that my definition of "worth it" is entirely a professional one. The way I see it, if the income I make from shots not possible (or not sellable) with my 5D2 but possible and sellable from my 5D3 exceeds $3500, then the camera is worth it. So far, the combination of high ISO performance, much better AF, and little things like the viewfinder leveler mean that for my uses this is very likely the case.

For the hobbyist this is a more difficult decision and depends on where you put your values. Even a hobbyist, though, will not truly understand the value of the camera without trying it out.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> Properly done reviews are useful, but nothing takes the place of actually trying it out for yourself. It's kind of like reading a review on a new Ferrari. Sure, I can read a review and make a call whether it's worth it, but ultimately if I need to know what the car is truly like I need to get inside one and drive it. For the hobbyist this is a more difficult decision and depends on where you put your values. Even a hobbyist, though, will not truly understand the value of the camera without trying it out.



As a pro it's easy because you can estimate "more shots sold or time saved vs upgrade price". For amateurs, I think your "Ferrari" comparison is a good one. A Ferrari is a car that takes you from A to B just like a camera takes pictures. You might get to B faster in a Ferrari, but to say if this is worth it you have to take the luxury factor into account - some countries even add taxes to these commodities because they are not strictly "necessary". And indeed: The "luxury factor" is one only experienced when touching the product.

And it seems a top camera body as an "unnecessary" luxury is what generates these heated discussion because the added "feel good" value of a 5d3 or Ferrari goes down the drain if other people laugh at you like "it's crazy to pay $3500 for this" or "Hey, I can spit on your head if you sit in this sports car". As a pro, you'd just say "So what? This is my working gear as a photog or race driver".

But if someone gets a 5d3 and likes it because its the greatest camera on the block, this is as good a reason as any for consumption - but it's even more personal than weight or size. So for the sake of a reasonable discussion, imho it would be useful to differentiate these things - and luckily, many people do when they write something like "the 5d3 is not that much of an upgrade but does x better in situation y - but in any case I like it and it's great".


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 22, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> For the hobbyist this is a more difficult decision and depends on where you put your values. Even a hobbyist, though, will not truly understand the value of the camera without trying it out.



Not always. I'm a hobbyist and moved from a 20D to a 5DII recently. Because of the AF limitations of the 5DII, I knew that I'd be using the center point more than I'd like (same with the 20D) and have to crop more often, but because it is a hobby, it is a choice based on value. I got a Canon refurb 5DII for less than half the price a 5DIII. Do I wish that I have a camera that has better AF? Almost every time I use it, but not for the $1900 difference that I saved by getting a 5DII. I have more money tied up in Canon lenses than any body I'd consider, but that's my preference. I waited for the 5DIII to come up before making a choice and I'm glad I did. Now that I have the 5DII, the improvements of the 5DIII seem less and less worth it just because the difference is smaller than with the previous body. My position may change in the future when the 5DIII prices drop (or when they start being offered in the Canon refurb store), but right now a couple lenses and a good tripod system are higher priorities.


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 22, 2012)

distant.star said:


> The plan that's evolved as a cheaper 5D3 solution for me is this:
> 
> 1. Replace the T2i with a new 7D.
> 
> ...



Good luck with the 7D.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 22, 2012)

VERY nicely said.

This is the product from the tools.

As sung by Barbra Streisand, "The Way We Were"


Memories, like the corners of my mind
Misty, water-colored memories of the way we were
Scattered pictures of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were


Thanks much, Viggo.





Viggo said:


> I find it impossible to loose as I invest in memories...


----------



## tron (Apr 22, 2012)

I admit the ducks I want to photo with my new 100-400 will have to be still or at least not fly and some photos I take at iso 1600-6400 range could be a better with a 5DIII but for the majority of the photos I take (landscapes) my 5DII is more than enough. 

Due to lack of time it has done only 10-11K clicks. Plus it looks as good as new. I do not wish to sell it neither to declare it as a backup body.


----------



## tron (Apr 22, 2012)

Also it just occurred to me that a few months ago (end of 2011) I have almost spent the amount of money 5DIII costs to get
1. 100-400 L 2. 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

If I were to "zero" that counter for 2012 I can spend this amount to get a TS-E 17mm f/4 and a 8-15 or get nothing and
save for a 400mm DO or a used 500mm f/4L some time in 2013 or 2014.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 22, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > The plan that's evolved as a cheaper 5D3 solution for me is this:
> ...


Sounds like a good plan to me. My upgrade path for bodies stops at 7D, or whatever its micro-adjusting, magnesium-built, weather-sealed, fast-autofocusing, crop-sensored equivalent is in about 2 years.


----------



## xps (Apr 22, 2012)

The question is often dominated by the money you can spend for this hobby. Some years ago, Canon lowered the price-bar you have to jump over to reach the technical heaven. The small pocket cameras are very good, but we all want an fantastic fast and good camera. We can take nice pictures, if they don´t move. But the www and all of the modern magazines show extraordinary pictures. And we do think that we can shoot such pictures too. 
So we got addicted to own the newest technological acquisition. (just look at the computer/smartphone business).
And Canon knows that. Now they hung the bar higher. And many of us will try to jump over the bar. 
It´s ok. Everyone has to decide it for his own.
I´m waiting for an 7D MKII too, the price gap is to wide for me. And, I rediscovered my 1V and 3. And I took some super shots at. And it was surprising, that an old slide, displayed on an 4*6m big slidescreen, looks that good.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

For the cost of the lens I have bought in the last 6 months I could have had 5 x 5DIII. The odd $500 between the D800 and the 5DIII is trivial in the grand scheme of things


----------



## tron (Apr 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> For the cost of the lens I have bought in the last 6 months I could have had 5 x 5DIII. The odd $500 between the D800 and the 5DIII is trivial in the grand scheme of things



Oh! Please don't mention lenses, you tempt me! By the way what lens(es) did you buy?


----------



## loomitz (Apr 22, 2012)

Come on guys, i have the 5D Mk III for two weeks, i try several setting to make the light leak issue affect me, but it dosent.

This is a really GREATE CAMERA, I love my 5D MK III at first i have a little of trouble with the AF but now that i understant how it work i love it 

People without 5D MK III please first try for more than a day one, and people who already own one still taking grate photos 

Sorry for my english


----------



## tron (Apr 22, 2012)

loomitz said:


> Come on guys, i have the 5D Mk III for two weeks, i try several setting to make the light leak issue affect me, but it dosent.



Let me help you: 
1. Remove the lens cap. 
2. Take a torch. 
3. Turn it on. 
4. Put it in front of your camera and aim at it.
5. Take a metering with your camera. 
6. Enjoy...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2012)

tron said:


> loomitz said:
> 
> 
> > Come on guys, i have the 5D Mk III for two weeks, i try several setting to make the light leak issue affect me, but it dosent.
> ...



That is true... *sigh* my torch pictures will never bee the same again... :


----------



## cayenne (Apr 22, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



I guess it all depends on what you want....and what your disposable income level is.

The 5D Mark III, is going to be my first DSLR. I'm going to get the kit, and likely one prime and bang for the buck I think I'm going to get the Canon 85mm 1.8. It is reportedly a fast lens, and quite sharp.

I have from my old, old old Nikon FA film camera, a 50mm lens that I'm going to use on the new camera with an adapter...mostly for video.

I figure I'd like to jump in with both feet to photography....still and video, and bang for the buck, with longevity, this is the way to go. I'm looking to likely get it from crutch field....that way, no taxes (saving about 10%), and they have the rewards thing, so that is about $280 extra I'll get back..likely that will go towards a battery grip. That and 12 mo no interest financing......so, to me, hard camera to pass up.

I've just been one of those to where when I want do to something that involves hardware, I'd rather save, and get the best I can at the limit I can afford.

Prior to getting the camera, I bought a macbook pro loaded....something to use to work on images. I'm going to get the camera, lens...and I think to start with, Apeture and FCPX will set me up for a few years to go. While I can buy the camera outright...why not take advantage of the 12mo no interest? I'll likely drop about $1700 right off, just to keep monthlies more friendly at a bit over $320 or so...and in a year, it'll be paid in full, and I'll start hunting a couple more high end, L level bits of glass. I plan to start with some wide angle stuff.

Anyway...depends on what you want to do...and what your financial obligations are.....not bad either way you want to go....but just because you can't afford it, or don't think it is worth it....I wish people would quit b*tchin'.....get what works for you.

Some would rather jump in and start as high as they can go...rather than go years building up here and there with lower level stuff....cameras, cars...women....etc.



cayenne


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

tron said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > For the cost of the lens I have bought in the last 6 months I could have had 5 x 5DIII. The odd $500 between the D800 and the 5DIII is trivial in the grand scheme of things
> ...



600 f/4, 200 f/2, 8-15, ts-e24


----------



## tron (Apr 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



May I assume that you bought the 600 and 200mm lenses to keep company to other similar lenses, so that they will not feel ... lonely? ;D ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 23, 2012)

tron said:


> May I assume that you bought the 600 and 200mm lenses to keep company to other similar lenses, so that they will not feel ... lonely? ;D ;D



The 400 f/2.8 didn't give enough reach on the 1Ds3 and the 200 f/2 I got for a walkabout/portrait lens on the 1Ds3.

I only want the 14mm and the ts-e17 now, but there is no rush for those.

I am really pleased with the 200 f/2 - took a bunch of goat portraits with it yesterday (which is why you need a 200) and the background blur is fabulous. I was also surprised how (relatively) light it is as well. Got some dog portraits to do tonight I will give it a try with that too.


----------



## mhvogel.de (Apr 23, 2012)

can't tell about the MII-version yet, but:
baught a MII in 2010 for 1900 EUR, sold it last week for 1300 EUR with 100000 klicks, makes 25 EUR/per month or less then 0,01 EUR/per click. Sounds like quiet good value to me, overall. don't understand the complaints.

The 7D is something different, from img-quality (critical for me) not an alternative.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Apr 23, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> I have been a Canon shooter for about 15 years. Canon film, Rebel, now with the 40D since 2008. The upgrades coming from Canon have been incremental and minor. Nikon a few years ago went big time with upgraded bodies. I still don't see the value in upgrading from 40D to 7D. Sure the body is nicer, but not worth it. The 5D MKIII is a failure. The ones who bit and paid that much money for it have to justify and auto convince themselves that it is worth it. Not in my books. I will be selling my lenses, don't have any L glass, but a number of mid-of-the-road ones and primes. Will be getting rid of Canon because even their flagship 5D MKIII is a half-asses upgrade over the 5D MKIII at a very high price. Why can't they do things right and get us some nice bodies like Nikon does? We don't have another 100 years to wait around! I don't carry about brands, but quality and price!



Nikon Troll Soldier :-[ , you've been living off the nuclear power plant nearby, make sure Sarah and Jesse get a deep down clean, hear!!!


----------



## tron (Apr 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > May I assume that you bought the 600 and 200mm lenses to keep company to other similar lenses, so that they will not feel ... lonely? ;D ;D
> ...



Well if I could I would get either a 400mm f/4 DO or a 500mm f/4L. But the prices are so high (the 500mm f/4L II will be even more expensive) so I got a 100-400L as a compromise.

Next is probably the TS-E 17 (or the hartblei colar for TS-E lenses to use it on my TS-E 24mm II)


----------

