# Follow-up poll: If you're not buying a 5D3 due to price....



## V8Beast (Jun 20, 2012)

This isn't meant to be an poll where the full-frame elitists and APS-C users stricken with an inferiority complex to duke it out. Whether someone is a hobbyists or pro is entirely irrelevant to this poll as well. It just seems like people either really love their 5D3, or are calling bloody murder about the price. I've noticed many of the people that love it were already shooting full-frame, while those discontent about the price are often current APS-C users. My observations could be completely out of line, which is why I'm posting this poll out of curiosity. 

Personally, as the owner of a 5D3 that came out of the very first batch, I obviously felt it was worth the price. However, if I were an APS-C user, I completely understand why some people are upset about the price. If that were the case, I'd probably just buy a 5D2, or if I couldn't bear the thought of dealing with such a pathetic AF system and lethargic frame rate, I'd pick up a D600 if it does indeed materialize at the rumored specs and price.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 20, 2012)

I bought my 7D instead of the 5D2 a few years ago, basically due to the price. I would have loved the 5D2 for the FF sensor and low-light, but after I bought the 7D I discovered a love of wildlife, and got the 70-300L just after release. If I'd gone the 5D2 to begin with, I wouldn't have been able to afford as good a glass kit.

Now, I'm finding myself doing a lot more indoorsy-event-type stuff, for which the 5D2 or 5D3 low-light capabilities would be perfect. But i'm happy with the shots I'm getting from my 7D at iso1600. It's all for fun not money so I can't justify dropping even $2500 (and sell the 7D) to get a 5D3. So 7D is where I'm at for another year at least.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

None of the above

But because:

- No support by PW
- No AF point metering 

I shoot theatre 2 or 3 times a month with no flash, so I might buy one because of the silent shutter


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> None of the above
> 
> But because:
> 
> ...


not to mention seriously good high iso


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > None of the above
> ...



Theatre is well lit so the 1D4 + 200 f/2 trundles along at less than iso 3200 without an issue


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



the 1D4 has silent shutter, not super quite but not the machine gun stacato of it at full noise


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



In a theatre it is still too loud even using single shot. I would be interested in knowing if the 5DIII is quieter


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

i'll do some sound clips of the 5Dmk3 vs the 1Dmk3 if you like the 1D mk3 sounds exactly the same as the 1Dmk4 it sounds like its sneezing, the 5dmk3 is quieter I dont have a DB meter to get quantative comparisons
there doesnt have to be very much ambient noise to completely mask the sound.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i'll do some sound clips of the 5Dmk3 vs the 1Dmk3 if you like the 1D mk3 sounds exactly the same as the 1Dmk4 it sounds like its sneezing, the 5dmk3 is quieter I dont have a DB meter to get quantative comparisons
> there doesnt have to be very much ambient noise to completely mask the sound.



Thanks - I would appreciate that


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 20, 2012)

7D user. I would prefer to ADD a FF body to my setup. I do not want to sell the 7D, because I like the reach of APS-C. 

As far as 5D3 goes: yes, "in principle" it is attractive. 22 MP and 6fps are plenty for my use. It even uses the same batteries and charger as my 7D [I consider that a major convenience plus, although it does nothing for image quality]. I appreciate the fact that radio-wireless speedlites are now available from Canon. And overall I am more comfortable with the UI of Canon DSLRs than Nikons plus I got a bit of nice glass [EF-S and EF/L] ... 
-> so I do not really WANT to switch brands. 

BUT ... 

on the other hand, the 5D3 is absolutely nothing more than a 5D2 with an appropriate AF system finally added. Sensor itself is only a minor improvement. Important features that could be implemented dirt cheap in firmware are still omitted (e.g. a really useful Auto ISO function, to name jus one). So I do not see ANYTHING that justifies a higher price for the 5D3 than for a 5D2. So ... I would be prepared to pay for a 5D3 ... up to 2.500 USD/€. This would also be a fair price realtive to the somewhat better Nikon D800. 

There is no way, I will ever pay one cent more for a 5D3 than Nikon is charging for the D800. As a matter of fact, if the coming D600 also bests the 5D3 in DR and costs even less, then that price (1500-2000) will be my new upper price limit for the 5D3. 

And IF Nikon brings out a "true killer" crop D400 that bests the 7D (or 7D II) in a big way, especially in terms of DR - then I will probably switch to nikon with a D400 + D600 dual body setup plus holy trinity in lenses and be done with Canon for many years.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> on the other hand, the 5D3 is absolutely nothing more than a 5D2 with an appropriate AF system finally added. Sensor itself is only a minor improvement. Important features that could be implemented dirt cheap in firmware are still omitted (e.g. a really useful Auto ISO function, to name jus one). So I do not see ANYTHING that justifies a higher price for the 5D3 than for a 5D2. So ... I would be prepared to pay for a 5D3 ... up to 2.500 USD/€. This would also be a fair price realtive to the somewhat better Nikon D800.
> 
> There is no way, I will ever pay one cent more for a 5D3 than Nikon is charging for the D800. As a matter of fact, if the coming D600 also bests the 5D3 in DR and costs even less, then that price (1500-2000) will be my new upper price limit for the 5D3.
> 
> And IF Nikon brings out a "true killer" crop D400 that bests the 7D (or 7D II) in a big way, especially in terms of DR - then I will probably switch to nikon with a D400 + D600 dual body setup plus holy trinity in lenses and be done with Canon for many years.



My feelings exactly. 
But I could also do with a D7100.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 20, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > on the other hand, the 5D3 is absolutely nothing more than a 5D2 with an appropriate AF system finally added. Sensor itself is only a minor improvement. Important features that could be implemented dirt cheap in firmware are still omitted (e.g. a really useful Auto ISO function, to name jus one). So I do not see ANYTHING that justifies a higher price for the 5D3 than for a 5D2. So ... I would be prepared to pay for a 5D3 ... up to 2.500 USD/€. This would also be a fair price realtive to the somewhat better Nikon D800.
> ...


wow. exactly the same as i feel. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII. I have played with it a few times and it is great. But as said above.... given the overall tone of reviews I have read(majority very pro D800,) I would definitely not pay more for the 5DIII than D800. With the price of the new 24-70 II and the 5DIII i'm holding out and will probably buy the D600 if it is a FF similar to the D7000 for under 2000.


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> In a theatre it is still too loud even using single shot. I would be interested in knowing if the 5DIII is quieter



Just wrap some pullover around ur camera


----------



## sparda79 (Jun 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> There is no way, I will ever pay one cent more for a 5D3 than Nikon is charging for the D800. As a matter of fact, if the coming D600 also bests the 5D3 in DR and costs even less, then that price (1500-2000) will be my new upper price limit for the 5D3.
> 
> And IF Nikon brings out a "true killer" crop D400 that bests the 7D (or 7D II) in a big way, especially in terms of DR - then I will probably switch to nikon with a D400 + D600 dual body setup plus holy trinity in lenses and be done with Canon for many years.



I upgraded from 7D to 5D3. The price here was (2 month ago) around US$3,000. And it's even slightly cheaper that D800 price, probably due to the D800 price increase.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 20, 2012)

I just bought a 5D3, and still have my 60D.
Quite an upgrade for me, and I'm very happy.

I got good results from my 60D, but the 5D3 is similar to use, just better in every sense.
I can still evenuse my Tokina 11-15 from 15mm and up, and wow, is it wide!

Even my 24-105 is more useful now on a FF than a crop too.

The new focussing system is fantastic, and the exposure and colours are just so much better too.
Far less processing to do when you do a job and take over 500 photos in a night.


----------



## nonac (Jun 20, 2012)

After using Canon for 30+ years, I am seriously considering switching to Nikon. Canon is overpricing their products. Name alone is not going to get me to pay more for something equal to or less than what the competition offers.


----------



## Ayelike (Jun 20, 2012)

I got a 5D3 at the weekend. I was travelling to Europe to visit a friend anyway so picked it up there to save over £300 from the UK price.

It's still an expensive bit of kit at £2600 but I've been waiting for this camera for over a year and I wasn't about to let another year pass waiting for a possible entry level full frame or 7D2 and sticking with a crop. You only live once!

Putting the money into it has made me determined to master the camera and attempt to make some money out of photography. I'm hoping this step up raises my game.

It's worlds apart from my 450D - I'm no longer scared of poor light conditions with or without a flash.


----------



## tron (Jun 20, 2012)

Being an amateur 5D Mark II user that uses the camera mostly for landscapes I find the 5D mark III not worth the money at all.

Apart from the obvious improvements in AF, fps and (less so in) noise I think it has introduced some drawbacks too.

1. Not an easily user replaceable screen! What were they thinking? They could have used the same screens as in 5D Mark II and let people use third party if they desire so. For example I use Canon's grid screen for now.

2. Unless someone convinces me otherwise I suspect it has stronger AA filter hence the problems in all but Canon software and the recent corrections in Canon's DPP. But adding PP sharpening does not seem the same as being sharp in the first place.

3. No Magic Lantern (for now)... OK this is not Canon't fault obviously but I mentioned it for completeness...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

I use crop and FF bodies. Both are great at what they do, but 3500$ for a 5D3 plus the support it will need will be too expensive for me to justify over my aging, die hard, 5Dc.

5D3 - 3500$
Windows 7 Pro retail - 250$
RAM to run Win7 - 200$
Lightroom 4 to process RAW files - 150$

Total for moving to a 5D3
4100$ + Tax.

Ouch. Too much $$$$ for what i offers compared to just 1700$ for a MK2.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 20, 2012)

So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 20, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.



not surprising to me ... the 5D 3 is too expensive for what it is .. unless you earn money with it and have enough money to start with.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > So much for my theory. Looks like the poll results are split right down the middle.
> ...



That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



I guess that's the next poll...


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros



Of course non-pros will buy as well. But the pool of pure hobbyists willing and able to plonk down 3.5k for a body alone is limited ... especially if a better camera is available for 2.8k from the competition. 

Pro's are often somewhat more "looked in" by sizeable investments in glass, speedlites etc. and with regards to the cost of a major change in their workflow. SO to them 3.5k vs. 2.8k is a comparatively smaller issue.


----------



## JerryB (Jun 20, 2012)

I was lucky. A friend sold me his for 3100. It's an expensive camera. I also own a 5dm2 which I'm keeping. It takes great photos. As a photojournalist, I need a second camera. If I didn't need the faster focus and the low light, I would not have bought it. A salesman once told me that Canon likes the higher prices as a way to separate "pro" photographers form amateurs, U don't know if that is true but you do have to wonder. I was luck to find a deal; otherwise, I would have purchased another 5dm2.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 20, 2012)

I just voted, did that take away or add to this poll's suckiness?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > That is a big presumption that users are going to be pros
> ...



I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.



most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 21, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> I just voted, did that take away or add to this poll's suckiness?



No, it would have sucked either way ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 21, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> most hobbyists I know - including many with a 5D 2 - own not more than 2, max. 3 lenses (kit + telezoom and/or portrait fixed focal) and possibly (!) one Speedlite. For many of them switching to another camera supplier is not really a hard decision. Pro's typically do own much more and more expensive gear plus are quite dependent on their in-depth experience using it plus their established workflows as well as factors like good contacts with CPS (or NPS on the Nikon side) ... for many of them a whole lot tougher to change horses mid-race.



It's tough to generalize like that. I know lots of pros whose gear is limited to a primary body, a backup body, and 3-4 zooms. Some might only have 2-3 zooms along with a couple of fast primes. It's true that they make their money with their gear, but I don't know a lot of rich, full-time photographers. I depends what type of pro you're talking about, too. Sports photogs might have a ton of gear, as you suggest, but a photojournalist or wedding photog might be limited to a small handful of zooms and primes. Hobbyists, on the other hand, cover the gamut from a soccer mom with a kit lens to people with loads of disposable income with several Pelican cases full of gear. 

You do make some good points about pros being less likely to switch. For one, a lot of pros are out of touch in terms of the latest and greatest gear on the market. A lot of pros look at me like I'm crazy when I mention the strides Nikon has made in the last 4-5 years, and how they're putting out an outstanding product line now. Plus, as you suggest, familiarity with a system is very important as well.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.
> ...



It is not down to money but inertia - they dont have the time or the inclination to learn about a new system when they struggle with their existing kit. That is vendor independent. Just the different terminalogy is enough to put them off.

We are talking about the big group of hobbyists now - not the enthusiasts who tend to know their way round. But then the enthusiasts are the ones that will have a 5Dx/7D plus a couple of L lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 22, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would think hobbyists are less likely to swap because of the implications on changing the rest of their kit.
> ...



+1 - professionals depend on the whole infrastructure, including vendor support and switching isn't an option taken lightly. Some hobbyists or enthusiasts might see photography just as collecting a pile of lenses and camera bodies, but that's naive - there's much more to it, esp. if your income depends on your gear.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> +1 - professionals depend on the whole infrastructure, including vendor support and switching isn't an option taken lightly. Some hobbyists or enthusiasts might see photography just as collecting a pile of lenses and camera bodies, but that's naive - there's much more to it, esp. if your income depends on your gear.



I suppose you think that applies only to professionals? Amateurs rely a lot on the infrastructure as well.

You try being in the position where your pension is spent on your gear and tell me if they are just collecting gear. Enthusiasts tend to take a very wide range of photos - much wider than professionals and therefore need a wider range of gear. Why do you think I have all three sensor types? No - they were for for carefully consdered reasons and bought used to keep the spend down. I couldn't contemplate switching brands now as my pile of Canon specific kit is so large that it would take months and months to get back to the the same position that I am in now - even if that was possible.

D800 cheaper than the 5DIII? So what - I dont need a 5DIII as my 1DS3 is more than adequate for portraits/landscapes and is adequate at sports too in emergency. The images dont deteriorate as the camera gets older so there has to be a reason to upgrade/purchase.

I only have one fun piece of kit - a D30. I am looking to see what level of IQ I can get from it - after all it is $2450 cheaper than a D800


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The images dont deteriorate as the camera gets older ...



There is sensor aging. After something like 4-5 years and an according number of exposures, imaging sensors do show signs of degradation. Similar to any other electric and electronic item which also degrade with use ... from light bulbs to memory chips and SSDs. 

Got no specifics right now, but read about it some time ago and remember, that is was quite visible in terms of increased noise levels, dead subpixels etc.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 23, 2012)

wow, another post basically singing the same song, but this time to a slightly different tune....

Whether your a pro, semi pro, hobbyist, enthusiast or novice - to buy, what to buy, or not to buy is all about need vs gain vs intended use.If your a landscape shooter, and have the disposable money/sell enough prints to afford it - go get yourself a d800 and be happy with it. If you make no money with photography at all though, then I have to say it ---you don't have needs at all, nothing is NEEDED, its all wants ---and those people do tend to be the most vocal, and want more than what any provider can offer. Best way to describe this is that they are fickle (because their decisions are based solely on wants which change faster than needs). Not bashing, just making a valid point. If your a pro or semi-pro though, you do have needs. If you work in the studio mostly, and produce images for billboards or other large scale assignments, then yeah, go with the d800. If you shoot a mix of studio/portrait/wedding/event work, then you may find the mk3 to be a very well rounded camera. If you shoot studio/portraits and aren't printing giant sized prints and are using a 5d2, then I can see why the mk3 doesn't offer enough. But if you shoot weddings, the improved AF and ISO do make the mk3 a very worthwhile upgrade. Sports shooters offer a whole different set of needs and wants to the mix - sports shooters need range and for them a better IQ APS-C would be the best fit cause you need the range and may not be able to justify the cost of longer zoom lenses, also, fps and buffer limit are a big factor to you. Needs vs wants though - are you shooting at the super bowl, or your kids little league game? The superbowl shooter has more clearly defined needs, while the little league shooter has wants (and yeah, theres lots of room inbetween, semipros and lower level pros may be earning money shooting, but not enough to afford/justify a 1dx with a 200-400 lens, or any FF camera due to the reach they need - again, the crop sensor isa very valid option for these shooters. 

I really think the 7d is a good example of how a 'try to satisfy too many needs in one cheap package camera' shows its limitations. It has this good enough in all categories feel to it, but nothing outstandingly stellar in any one field problem. I would love to see the 7d line re-envisioned, and split into 2 - a 7d2 and a 7dx... one being optimized for low light and IQ, 22 mpx sesnor, lower fps expanded ISO range (a good entry level wedding cam/a really good backup body), and one for sports shooters optimized for fps. I highly doubt this will happen, but one can dream. AS a 7d shooter who shoots weddings, portraits, events and art - greater ISO range and and better IQ at 3200-6400 is far more important than fps. This is also why the mk3 makes sense for me, and once I can afford one I am snagging one (about $800 off now, uggg...I would have one now but opted to invest in lighting)...

As to the mk3 being $500 more than the d800, it really doesn't matter to me. I see the benefits of the AF and ISO range that the mk3 would give me. The d800 would suit the needs of my portrait work, and my fine art work, but not the needs of my wedding and event work - in that regard the lack of sRAW and mRAW options are deal breakers. And as to portrait work - investing in lighting has already lead my clients saying WOW, and thats with a 7D - so again, the d800 ain't attractive enough to do any switching. It all boil down to needs vs wants vs ROI (ROI will only matter to pros and semi-pros).


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 24, 2012)

I find something quite difficult to understand. 

Most people are arguing over $500-$600, meaning people think the 5D Mark III should cost around $2999. We're talking about the most cutting edge 2012 technology that will be of great use till late 2015, the potential to make some good money and/or amazing usage as a hobbiest. Three years of usage (at least) comes out to roughly $165 a year more than your "budget". People spend that amount on buying some stupid item or on a pair of shoes - without even thinking twice so why suddenly not spend it on this incredible DSLR. 

If you are really into it and want it then a few hundred dollars more is not going to stop you having the most desired camera of 2012 and an all time classic.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 24, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> I find something quite difficult to understand.
> 
> Most people are arguing over $500-$600, meaning people think the 5D Mark III should cost around $2999. We're talking about the most cutting edge 2012 technology that will be of great use till late 2015, the potential to make some good money and/or amazing usage as a hobbiest. Three years of usage (at least) comes out to roughly $165 a year more than your "budget". People spend that amount on buying some stupid item or on a pair of shoes - without even thinking twice so why suddenly not spend it on this incredible DSLR.
> 
> If you are really into it and want it then a few hundred dollars more is not going to stop you having the most desired camera of 2012 and an all time classic.



+1 especially as the total cost of switching is likely to cost more then $500


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 24, 2012)

People would go and spend $100-$150 on a nice meal without thinking much but when Canon put up the price for a reason, just because people don't know why yet doesn't mean that they are wrong. Let's say a possibility is that they are bringing out an entry level FF camera at the $2300-$2400 range so then everyone would understand that Canon have shifted the 5D3 into a higher category and brought in a newer model to replace the 5D2. Even if they didn't bring in an entry level FF, we're talking about a few hundred dollars here and if that's too much then I guess you've chosen the wrong profession/hobby!

Happy shooting ;D


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 25, 2012)

I shoot with a 5D classic and a 7D. Between the two of them, they meet all my needs. After two years of work and sending them in to Canon service for calibration, they are working properly. And just as important, I understand the limitations of each one. I just have to pick the right one for the job and use it within its limits. (The poor autofocus on the 5D being the most annoying.) 

While waiting for the 5D 3 to appear, I was pretty excited thinking that I could buy a camera with full frame image quality and the fast handling of the 7D. I even figured out how to pay for it at what I expected to be 3K in US dollars.

The extra $500 may not seem like much, but it was enough of a psychological surprise that it caused me to re-evaluate my need for a new camera and I decided not to purchase one. It made me feel like Canon was trying to take advantage of my presumed loyalty to the brand.

I will wait until the end of this year to see if the price drops into my comfort zone. Maybe when the supply chain is filled and all the early adopters have their Mark 3s, Canon will allow some discounting.

If the price does not come down (and assuming Canon does not come out with a new camera that meets my needs) I will have to think seriously about the full frame Nikons. Or maybe I'll just keep shooting with my current cameras until they fall apart!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 25, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I shoot with a 5D classic and a 7D. Between the two of them, they meet all my needs. After two years of work and sending them in to Canon service for calibration, they are working properly. And just as important, I understand the limitations of each one. I just have to pick the right one for the job and use it within its limits. (The poor autofocus on the 5D being the most annoying.)
> 
> While waiting for the 5D 3 to appear, I was pretty excited thinking that I could buy a camera with full frame image quality and the fast handling of the 7D. I even figured out how to pay for it at what I expected to be 3K in US dollars.
> 
> ...



+1. Shoot the same bodies here as well. Till my 5Dc breaths it's last breath!


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> +1. Shoot the same bodies here as well. Till my 5Dc breaths it's last breath!



Hopefully you've had the 5DC's mirror repair done already, then ;D


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> +1. Shoot the same bodies here as well. Till my 5Dc breaths it's last breath!



Sorry, I know this isn't a 5D classic thread, but if it weren't for the semi-random autofocus and lack of microfocus, that old body would meet my needs for a long time. Most of my photos end up on the web - a few make it into print form up to 13x19, maybe 16x20 at most. The megapixel race has left me behind and I do virtually all my shooting at ISO 100 to 400 so the ISO race doesn't affect me either. There really isn't a lot of incentive for me to upgrade to the 5D3. Hmmm, exactly how much is a killer autofocus system worth to me?


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 25, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I shoot with a 5D classic and a 7D. Between the two of them, they meet all my needs. After two years of work and sending them in to Canon service for calibration, they are working properly. And just as important, I understand the limitations of each one. I just have to pick the right one for the job and use it within its limits. (The poor autofocus on the 5D being the most annoying.)
> 
> While waiting for the 5D 3 to appear, I was pretty excited thinking that I could buy a camera with full frame image quality and the fast handling of the 7D. I even figured out how to pay for it at what I expected to be 3K in US dollars.
> 
> ...



Okay great however Canon didn't do anything wrong by re-placing the 5D series higher up on the Canon list. I think that they are moving it up and will bring in an entry level FF to replace the 5D2 price range. So you'll probably still have the opportunity to get that FF DSLR in your price range, the only thing is it may take till Photokina and another 1-3 months to get it in your hands. 

Additionally if there is any opportunity to make money between now and let's say around November (when the entry level FF might be in your hands) then one has to evaluate and see whether you may earn that extra $500 in a job or two and thus land up with a substantially better DSLR which will be used for years to come.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 25, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> People would go and spend $100-$150 on a nice meal without thinking much but when Canon ...



Yes, people pay $100-$150 for a nice meal - if this has value/utility for them. 
Otherwise, they would feel mugged.

The 5DIII is a great value compared to the 1-series. 
So, pros don’t seem to mind the high price. 
For enthusiasts, though, the 5DIII’s value proposition is not all that good. 

At the end, enthusiasts will chose the better value. 
So, my free advice to Canon is to pay more attention to what's going on 8).


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 25, 2012)

Some people have budgets and actually stick to them.


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Some people have budgets and actually stick to them.



I agree! In addition some people who have the 5D Mark II and shoot landscapes use the money for something more useful like lens(es).


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 25, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Some people have budgets and actually stick to them.



Just that the budgets vary considerably


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 25, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Some people have budgets and actually stick to them.



Budgets are there to be broken.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 25, 2012)

yeah credit card companies love that sort of reasoning.


----------

