# Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III



## Z (Nov 8, 2012)

So I got my feedback request e-mail for the 5D Mk. III from Canon today. Thought a couple of questions were interesting. Firstly:



> How desirable would it be for you to have the following features in your future digital SLR? Please rank your first, second and third most important features:
> 
> 1. Higher resolution (more megapixels)
> 2. Higher dynamic range (shadow/highlight detail)
> ...



Second interesting question:



> How desirable would it be for you to have the following features in your future digital SLR? Please rank your first, second and third most important feature.
> 
> 1. More compact & lightweight
> 2. Built-in Flash (with wireless flash control)
> ...



I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 8, 2012)

All I'd want is alittle more DR and the blink AF point fix soon.

Everything else is perfect on the MK.3. Can't complain. Its almost the perfect camera.


----------



## ablearcher (Nov 8, 2012)

How about "A reasonable price"? :


----------



## Ricku (Nov 8, 2012)

I want all of it, of course. 

But if I can pick only 1 thing from the list, it is more DR! (and not just a little).


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 8, 2012)

Z said:


> I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.


My sense is that people _always_ want more of everything. More features, better quality, greater durability, better sealing, faster speeds, etc. Improving anything requires greater investment by a manufacturer — in employees, research, development, materials, testing, manufacturing, quality controls, etc. — and of course charging accordingly. But when a manufacturer introduces the improvements that people _said_ they wanted, there is inevitably much complaining — even outrage — about the price. _"How dare they raise the price!?"_ It's as if we forget that all of the extra things we ask for actually cost money.

The 5DIII is the perfect example of this. Canon improved and upgraded just about every detail of the 5DII, as per many photographers' requests. Then there was no end to complaints about the price.


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 8, 2012)

ablearcher said:


> How about "A reasonable price"? :



Plenty of people have picked them up brand new for under $3k and as low as $2700-$2800, I think that's incredibly reasonable, about the same as the 5D2 was. I paid almost $3800 for mine after tax and I still think it's a great camera, although I wish it hadn't dropped in price that quickly.


----------



## sheedoe (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.
> ...



Don't completely agree with this. Technology improvements are expected from one revision of a product to another, but it doesn't mean it should increase the price everytime an improvement is made. Look at other manufacturers, like Apple that introduces an ipad almost every year with improvements while keeping the price the same. A more relative example would be the Nikon D700, which had an introduction price of $2999 which is the same as the D800, while Canon increased their price of the 5D3 from the 5D2 about $700!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 8, 2012)

ablearcher said:


> How about "A reasonable price"? :



Define reasonable price?  I guess it needs to match d800 prices? I guess canon has to think they are nikon, or, maybe with that line of logic canon should cut costs by firing a ton of people in accounting because canon's price/margin expectation should be set by nikon? 

Canon is much larger than nikon, nikon is doing all it can to catch up. The way I see it, the price of the d800 should actually match the price of the mk3. Why doesn't it? I can only see 2 reasons - either nikon is saving enough $$$ on the sensor because they are outsourcing sensor's, or, they are selling at a lower margin in order to make a big splash in the market. If it's the latter, then everyone who buys into the nikon system now will be vconfronted with higher costs down the road (like a freaking crack dealer would do...here a little bit for cheap, you'll be back for more). And if its the former, then nikon is dependent on sony which is great as long as sony keeps caring about the DSLR war (and sony has their hands in so many cookie jars with what they do that they don't need to keep a commitment to sensor R&D). 

So is the price reasonable? Well, the answer to that is really very subjective. It all depends on what you do with your photography. If you do this as a business, then its really a matter of will the new item enable you to grow your business and keep more clients happy. If its a hobby though, there is no way to quantify a reasonable price for you hobby. how many smiles is product X worth? When it comes down to it, most working photographers have no issues with the price of most things ----even here on this forum, its the features that are under debate. If there was a 5ds with 30 MP, 7d AF, 4 fps,13 stops of DR, and much improved IQ at ISO 100-800 then that would take care of the worries from working pro's who NEED that kind of camera. But, back to the hobbyist? When there is only a non tangible feel good factor ... the I want, well that never ends will it? If canon put out a 75 MP monster that had a max ISO range of 100-400, I am betting that even that would not fill the wants from the want crowd ....the want crowd will want 75 mp, 15 fps, a giant buffer, ISO range of 25-2,000,000 and better than MF image quality for $2000. 

Hasn't that topic been beaten to death??????


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 8, 2012)

sheedoe said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Z said:
> ...



You're right, not every improvement needs to increase the price. But many do. It just depends on the improvement and how much it adds to production costs. Apple products have much greater sales volume than cameras like the 5D3, so they can take advantage of greater economies of scale. And I'm guessing production is very different and labor costs are lower than for high end cameras.

I'm not sure that the D800 is as radical an improvement on the D700 as the 5D3 is on the 5D2. I'm honestly not familiar with the differences between those Nikons, other than that the D800 has a much higher res sensor. But I do know that the 5D3 is an upgrade on the 5D2 in just about every detail. The 5D3 is closer to the 1D series in quality, speed and features — and likely costs significantly more to build.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> sheedoe said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



Thank you.... Cell phone market is much much different from DSLR market. Apple is a great example --- the 'thinkinkers' are the bulk of the US employees. But, how do these phones get assembled - low wage chinese workers. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/china-apple-foxconn-worker/index.html They had to install nets to keep the employees from [email protected]!!!! Canon employs similar strategies for their lower end products, but SLR's are assembled in Japan by skilled workers --- As i think we'd all rather have on a pro grade piece of equipment!


----------



## etg9 (Nov 8, 2012)

I got the same survey and had to put a bunch of notes in mine because I just don't like where they are going. It feels very consumer-y. They seem to be looking at features that look cool. on a little symbol on the outside of the box at Best Buy. 

My Answers were: 

2,8,10 with a note that I would like better auto focus and metering. 
7,2 with a note that I don't want an included flash just an included flash controller. GPS, WiFi and all those other functions waste battery and raise the price.

Next all the talk about pricing in here shows that people don't really understand how pricing works. especially on computers. DSLRs are not computers and cannot be priced as such. Computers (iPads, phones, etc.) are made out of silicon parts. As processes get smaller they can extract more parts from the same amount of material. As the process matures they can more efficiently manufacture these parts.

The new iPad has many more transistors than the 1st gen iPad but uses less silicon to do so. 35mm sensors don't change sizes, cost the same (silicon is actually up a little over inflation) so the cost of those is only going up. The Digic chips may be about the same however. Magnesium Alloy, Weather Sealing, Mirror, Motor, Shutter, Prisim, ect. should all be going up in price too especially if quality of such things rises too. Generally in parts costs for performance increase are not linear with the performance increase itself. a shutter that lasts 50% longer will cost more than 50% more to make as quality has to rise significantly. Lastly, as others have mentioned scale. iPads are sold by the millions and DSLRs are not pricing comes down with volume and usually efficiency can improve in manufacturing.


----------



## sheedoe (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> sheedoe said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



Well apple is just an example. What I mean is Electronics in general will have improvements while keeping the price relatively steady or even declining. I'm talking about time in relation to technology. If the 5D2 and 5D3 were released in the same time periord, I would totally understand the price difference. But we're talking about 4 years of techology advancements! If this trend continues, we are looking at the 5D4 for over $4k and the 5D5 for about $5K!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

How desirable would it be for you to have the following features in your future digital SLR? Please rank your first, second and third most important features:

1. Wider ISO speeds (Note: If it is capable to produce clean noise, otherwise what is the point to increase it.)
2. These following should false into same category (Find the way so that we do not have to use AFMA and kinda fast focus in low light situations):
a. Faster Auto Focus (when shooting by viewfinder)
b. More accurate Auto Focus (when shooting by viewfinder)
c. AF performance (when shooting by liveview) <-- Donot really care about this since I personally don't use it.
3. Higher dynamic range (shadow/highlight detail)

Second interesting question:

How desirable would it be for you to have the following features in your future digital SLR? Please rank your first, second and third most important feature.

1. Better weather resistance
2. Wireless communication function (Something like build in pocket wizard)
3. Performance of LCD (size/resolution)

IMPORTANT: One thing that Canon forgot to ask which it AF point need to be speaded out to corner of its frame and this is VERY VERY important IMO


----------



## ablearcher (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.
> ...



Following this logic, if Canon (hopefully) continues to make improvements to their DSLRs then in a few years it will be perfectly fine to charge $10K for the next 5D body. Yeah, we get improvements on top of improvements and it is perfectly fine to price them up - new price on top of the old one. I am sure there will still be people with enough cash and professionals who can pay for this cam after one shoot. Great strategy.

To Chuck: I see a reasonable price as a price which can survive for a fair amount of time (like close to a year) and still sell the product without a massive outcry regarding the price and without all the crazy price fluctuations just months after the release. I suppose a $750 discount by an authorized dealer moving over 800 units in just a couple of days does tell us something about the price here. I am not saying Canon needs to follow Nikon in everything, but if you think 5DMKIII exists in a separate universe from D800 (marketwise, at least) then we are probably speaking two different languages. I agree this price topic is already beaten to death and my initial remark on the topic was done mostly as a joke, but hey, what else is as exciting as Canon's prices lately =))

Take it easy guys ;-)


----------



## K-amps (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.
> ...



True... CR is full of Whiners.


But it could have been Priced at $2600


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

CRers... we are kinda off the topic and need to get back in order to get more improvement on our future gears


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2012)

Great question. I've loved my 5D3, but there are a few niggly bits that could be addressed above and beyond the obvious better/faster/more DR stuff that everyone will certainly want:


Deeper button reconfiguration options - only some buttons can do certain things, this should be expanded
Rating photos should be recognized by vanilla handler programs like iPhoto (I know -- Apple could fix this, too)
Would love to see the electronic level (the lesser used in-viewfinder one) automatically toggle on when shooting vertically as I don't use a grip. This is simple enough to enable as they already have accel/gyro support for separate horizontal and vertical AF point selection, right?
As I shoot a lot in the dark, the -3EV AF capability of the new 6D would be a nice pickup, but I am assuming that this is all hardware and off the table. But here's hoping -- even with F/1.4 glass my 5D3's AF can hunt in very low light.
More useful auto ISO options for aperture, shutter speed, etc. I like the thought of Auto ISO but feel a bit limited by what I can/can't set for acceptable boundaries.

Little stuff said, I love this camera. I think the sensor is the only (even remotely) weak link of the 5D3. DR would be my #1 improvement.

- A


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 8, 2012)

etg9 said:


> Generally in parts costs for performance increase are not linear with the performance increase itself. a shutter that lasts 50% longer will cost more than 50% more to make as quality has to rise significantly. Lastly, as others have mentioned scale. iPads are sold by the millions and DSLRs are not pricing comes down with volume and usually efficiency can improve in manufacturing.


Excellent point about the shutter. Cameras are not just computers or electronics; they are also mechanical. Small improvements in shutter life, shutter lag time, mirror black-out time, autofocus acquisition and accuracy, etc., may have long development times, added material costs, added production costs, etc. So improving a $100 part by just 50% may turn it into a $250 part.

And scale is a big factor. This is partly why Leica cameras and lenses are so much more expensive. They may make something like 50 cameras and 50 lenses per day (just a guesstimate). All of their costs have to be recouped from a smaller batch of products. Canon obviously has much higher production volume than Leica, even for expensive items like the 5D3 and 1DX, but not nearly on the scale of the iPad or iPhone.



sheedoe said:


> Well apple is just an example. What I mean is Electronics in general will have improvements while keeping the price relatively steady or even declining. I'm talking about time in relation to technology. If the 5D2 and 5D3 were released in the same time periord, I would totally understand the price difference. But we're talking about 4 years of techology advancements! If this trend continues, we are looking at the 5D4 for over $4k and the 5D5 for about $5K!



There is no trend. The 5D was $3,300. The 5D2 was $2,700. The 5D3 was $3,500 (at introduction) and is $3,300 right now, and some sellers have offered it for under $3000. The 5D2 was a modest improvement over the original 5D, and came in at a lower price. While we were happy with the lower price, it seemed that many complained that it wasn't enough of an improvement over the original 5D. More resolution, but same old autofocus, same old sluggishness, etc. So Canon built the 5D3, executing on a long list of requested improvements and making a very noticeably upgraded product.



K-amps said:


> But it could have been Priced at $2600


But it will be. Just give it time.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

because of this? do we have economist in house? sorry, the crowd is dragging me off the topic


----------



## JR (Nov 8, 2012)

I would pick more DR hands down. (aka better sensors)


----------



## K-amps (Nov 8, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> But it will be. Just give it time.



Yes but no use giving the patient medication 12 hours after he is dead... unless you are ok with living with 3 year old tech...


----------



## krjc (Nov 8, 2012)

What was the original sales price of the 5D2 adjusted for inflation. I don't think there is much of a difference with the 5D3. We live in a market economy nobody forces you to buy anything. Complaining here doesn't do squat.

I bought a 5D3 and have been enjoying it immensely. It has given me many hours of enjoyment along with getting some great photos I couldn't of gotten with my 7D. Well worth every penny.

If I had an equivalent Nikon I'm sure I would be almost as happy. If I was heavy into landscapes sure the 800 is better, but I'm into sports, and low light, so I have the camera for me.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

forgot to post this one up also... more information to compare...


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 8, 2012)

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.



now, i am interested in your comparision about 5d mark III and nikon d800. please help me to break down so that i can learn about:

1. 5d mark iii does not complete what from upgrading 5d mark ii
2. d800 complete what from upgrading d700?

please give little more details (and keep in mind that you are speaking for the whole)...


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 8, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.


Right, it does have to compete against the D800, which was priced lower at introduction. Happily, the 5D3 price is coming down.

However, the question of a "better sensor" depends on the intended use and the preferences of the user. I prefer Canon color for photos of people, so the 5D3 has the better sensor _for me_. If I were a landscape photographer, I'd probably favor the D800 sensor. 

And other important factors come into the equation. Without a smaller Raw file format and without a super-quiet shutter mode and without Canon ergonomics and certain Canon lenses and the Canon radio-controlled flash, the D800 is less attractive _for me_, and therefor less competitive even at a lower price. For these reasons, the 5D3 competes very well for some photographers, whether priced the same as the D800 or higher. It comes down to the needs and preferences of the photographer. 

So there are multiple factors, some of which have greater importance to certain photographers; DR is just one of them. Back when Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera or any camera with excellent high ISO performance, some photographers still preferred Nikon because other factors were more important to them. This is why reducing camera competitiveness to just one or two factors and a price doesn't work.

There are obviously many photographers for whom the D800 will be a better fit and likewise many for whom the 5D3 will be a better fit, notwithstanding any price differences. It's apparent that Canon and Nikon intentionally design at least some of their products with somewhat different buyers in mind (with a good deal of overlap, of course) — this way they don't have to compete strictly on price.


----------



## pwp (Nov 9, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > How about "A reasonable price"? :
> ...



I think the 5D3 is great value. I paid $3500 in the full expectation that a few months later the price would be under $3000 but that's a few months without this brilliant camera. Hell, it's about the same price as I paid for my 5D Classic in late 2005. It's way less than the $14,500 I paid for the original 1Ds in 2003. From a business viewpoint the ROI period is shrinking all the time. And each new generation of camera smashes the previous ones in almost all respects. 

Get real! There's little to complain about.

-PW


----------



## pwp (Nov 9, 2012)

There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points. 

-PW


----------



## robbymack (Nov 9, 2012)

Who knew this would degrade into the 5diii d800 flame war. I honestly don't think they are competitors in anything other than relative price point. Actually I love the 5diii would have paid more for it because I see it as a Nikon d4 at half the price. So canon made in my opinion the best event/all around ff camera. Nikon on the other has made the best 35mm landscape camera that approaches Mf quality. Different strokes for different folks. If I was an event shooter with Nikon I would laugh at the idea of switching to the d800, if I was a landscaper I'd consider it unless of course I had a couple of TS E lenses then I'd be happy with any canon body.


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 9, 2012)

pwp said:


> There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.
> 
> -PW


I agree! That's one detail I wish they would improve/fix about the 5D3. It is strange that this was overlooked.



robbymack said:


> Who knew this would degrade into the 5diii d800 flame war. I honestly don't think they are competitors in anything other than relative price point. Actually I love the 5diii would have paid more for it because I see it as a Nikon d4 at half the price. So canon made in my opinion the best event/all around ff camera. Nikon on the other has made the best 35mm landscape camera that approaches Mf quality. Different strokes for different folks. If I was an event shooter with Nikon I would laugh at the idea of switching to the d800, if I was a landscaper I'd consider it unless of course I had a couple of TS E lenses then I'd be happy with any canon body.


Very good points! They have different strengths, so they don't compete strictly on price.


----------



## Z (Nov 9, 2012)

pwp said:


> There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.
> 
> -PW


If it's any consolation I wrote about that in one of the free text boxes, and I bet I'm not the only one.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 9, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.




Back to this again...the d800 has a great sensor for studio work and landscapes... the mk3 has a great sensor for wedding, events and sports. Can the mk3 do work in the studio? You betcha. Can the mk3 shoot landscapes? You betcha, can the D800 shoot sports, events, weddings...for sure it can. But is that where it is strongest? No for both. The mk3 is competing with the mk3 in a certain sense, but not really in the overall - each body specializes in one area of photography. 

I have many friends here i nthe wedding business, both nikon and canon shooters --- and by and large whenever a nikon user asks other nikon users what they would choose if they wanted to upgrade to FF for weddings, they get told - d700, d3, d3s, or d4 if the budget is big enough. Even the ones that have a d800 admit that at a wedding it doesn't come out of the bag. Many mention the d700 cause its good in low light and has reasonable file sizes. These aren't my words, they are the words of nikon users!!!!

I agree with you that the mk3 is not competing in price with the mk2, that would be silly because the mk3 is much improved over the mk2.

And finally, at least looking at the amazon top seller list, the mk3 is currently at 13th on the list, with the d600 at the 12th spot and the d800 at the 16th spot ---and oddly enough the mk2 at the 10th spot. If this is similar to whats happening at the other dealers then the mk3 is handling itself quite well...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 9, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.
> ...



+1 ...others have said it so I'll repeat it...why are we so dogmatic about this that we can't just use 2 systems if the needs for both are that great? I shoot weddings, portraits and events as my bread and butter...but I do also shoot landscapes and cityscapes and urban decay, etc, etc too. If demand for my art were to get to a point where I could live off of it, then yeah I would seriously consider picking up a d800. But, right now for me the service end is more lucrative - and yeah, the 5d3 is the better camera for that kind of work.


----------

