# What would make $3500 for 5DmIII justifiable for you?



## meli (Mar 4, 2012)

My vote would be for a fully fledged wireless connectivity, so, what would make it for you?

ps1. MPs to fps was loosely based to 144mbs throughput (perhaps 7-8 would be for an APS-H subselection?)
ps2. Wireless would be a full feature, means flash controller/ file transmission /remote control
ps3. some would prefer a 500$ voucher included but lets keep it to features people!

edit:
i would like also you guys that already preordered to chime in; 
I do understand that many of you have your reasons or that you'll have upgraded eitherway cause M3 does sound like a fine camera. What do you think? What would balance the +500$ over the competition?*


*Ofc we dont know anything about the real qualities of these cams, We dont really know how good AF or IQ etc might be, so lets just consider that both cameras perform half good as expected and then some!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 4, 2012)

If it had:

1. hit the 7-7.5fps of the rumors

or

2. if it had 30MP plus the 6fps that it does have (and the 3x3 perfectly sampled video would be like from a 1.3x crop or something)

without either of those the $3000 D800 price seems a lot more reasonable (if by some horror the low ISO DR is worse than the D800 and the new AF is worse than the new Nikon AF and since the metering is worse then it would need to be the old $2700)



If it somehow manages to match the DR of the D800 (a tall order than Canon has yet to come close to, but I hope they finally have) and if they AF should prove to work much better and if the D800 video ends up having moire/aliasing then the $3500 might be justified with specs as is though.

(The 5D3 shutter lag is worse, it has no built-in interval meter or flash, inferior metering, 50% less MP, uncompressed video out of HDMI out are some things I see that is does have less for sure. DR and SNR remain to be seen as do video and audio quality and AF ability. It does have better fps in FF mode but the D800 matches in DX mode with extra cost.)


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 4, 2012)

With the AF and ISOs, I think it's hard to balk at the price. The 5D3 is a sweet machine that will allow for unmatched low-light photography. And as some have already noted - considering inflation it's actually less than the 5D2 was in 2008.

But, if you wanted to do straight comparisons - I don't think a jump to $3,500 from $2,700 over 4 years is enough to warrant pulling out the pitchforks. $800... that's $200/year, or a couple of portrait gigs. 

Anyway - I voted that the price is justified. Considering I just sold my 5D2 for $2,000, having to come up with $1,500 for the latest and greatest technology in pro-photography is not too much to ask, at least in my opinion.


----------



## aRodriguezPixL (Mar 4, 2012)

i wanted to $800 USD rebate to your poll


----------



## meli (Mar 4, 2012)

aRodriguezPixL said:


> i wanted to $800 USD rebate to your poll



sorry mate, features only ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 4, 2012)

It might also help if they say offered it in a kit with the 24-70 II instead of just the 24-105 (which I do not want ever again) for a nice big discount, say $500 for the combo. $3500+$2300 for the pairing is a bit nuts. A kit with a big discount would start making the pricing look a bit more sensible.


----------



## meli (Mar 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> With the AF and ISOs, I think it's hard to balk at the price. The 5D3 is a sweet machine that will allow for unmatched low-light photography. And as some have already noted - considering inflation it's actually less than the 5D2 was in 2008.
> 
> But, if you wanted to do straight comparisons - I don't think a jump to $3,500 from $2,700 over 4 years is enough to warrant pulling out the pitchforks. $800... that's $200/year, or a couple of portrait gigs.
> 
> Anyway - I voted that the price is justified. Considering I just sold my 5D2 for $2,000, having to come up with $1,500 for the latest and greatest technology in pro-photography is not too much to ask, at least in my opinion.



I've no doubt that you 'll enjoy 5D3 cause its a pretty solid offer.

Concerning the price, consider there's a competing product from another brand from the same country! And its not that upon launching it a week ago there was noise about it being 500$* cheaper despite the inflation!

Perhaps the fuss about the price is getting amplified cause all Canon's latest offerings were pinched up, some by a serious margin



*even more actually, i think d700 had higher MSRP than 5dII


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 4, 2012)

From a report I read from a pro photographer that has had a 5D3 for a couple of weeks, he reckons it is a big step forward, especially for high ISO photos.

You can read it here.
http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

To me, the 5D3 is really most of a 1Dx for a lot less money.


----------



## kapanak (Mar 4, 2012)

I would never have switched to Nikon, but for me, the 5DIII had to be in the same league as the D800.

Specifically, the D800 received the D4's AF and Metering. I expected the 5DIII to received the full AF/Metering of the 1DX. Please do not feed me the "Canon needs to differentiate" line. I am sick of reading that here and there for over 4 years. 

I love my 5DII, and there is nothing wrong with it (other than the AF), and I will continue to use it. I have no particular use for more pixels, and I like the 22mp sensor on the 5DIII.

However, OP asked what would have justified an upgrade for me, and in response I say the AF/Metering and small tweaks that would have made 5DIII a match for features of the D800. 

Had these features been in the 5DIII, I would have gladly pre-ordered one online and one in my local camera shop (and kept the one that got here first of course, no need for two, can't even afford two) at the $3500 price.

I would have also liked to see a new 24-105 with better optics and the new IS that my 70-200 f/2.8 II has. 
On the other hand, IF the 5DIII had the above features, and there was a kit with the new 24-70 II, I would have paid $5000 to $5500 for such a kit. 

The new Speedlite is interesting though.


----------



## meli (Mar 4, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> ...
> To me, the 5D3 is really most of a 1Dx for a lot less money.
> ...



that's the thing Bennymiata, 5d & d800 are supposed to have tech from the corresponding top models. The point is how much of this tech trickles down, how it combines with original features to create a round product and for what price each company is willing to let it go. 

In this sense it seems to many that Nikon's offer to their userbase is much more sound.

And of course a company doesnt have to have any kind of loyalty towards its userbase, but thats not a reason for people to not get pissed off with'em!


----------



## meli (Mar 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It might also help if they say offered it in a kit with the 24-70 II instead of just the 24-105 (which I do not want ever again) for a nice big discount, say $500 for the combo. $3500+$2300 for the pairing is a bit nuts. A kit with a big discount would start making the pricing look a bit more sensible.



doubt if the combo will fall below 5k any time soon; I can see MarkIII dropping in price rather soon, be it cause of the market or production cost, but 24-70 might hold its premium for quite awhile


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 5, 2012)

I think Canon justified the price with the 61point AF and the sensor. The ISO performance from that sensor is incredible. $3500 is a lot, and is certainly more than I expected but I don't think it's overpriced. It might be a tad unfortunate for us but fair. I plan on buying one as soon as I can.


----------



## mikef2 (Mar 5, 2012)

A reduction of about £600 ...robbing B*****s !!

..sorry.. but canon need to rethink !!


----------



## motorhead (Mar 5, 2012)

In truth, maybe 48 MP, 61 AF points, no video, no fps (none at all), no extreme ISO, but super clean low ISO, better DR at 50ISO.

And so on. In other words, throw out the current Canon obsession with a camera that will shoot "a black cat in a coalmine on video" business model and instead give me a still landscape 'togs dream camera.


----------



## meli (Mar 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> I think Canon justified the price with the 61point AF and the sensor. The ISO performance from that sensor is incredible. $3500 is a lot, and is certainly more than I expected but I don't think it's overpriced. It might be a tad unfortunate for us but fair. I plan on buying one as soon as I can.



I do get the feeling that Canon's priorities for the new sensor were more towards pleasing the video community rather than the photographer, im really really curious about the low Iso DR


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 5, 2012)

While I think the price was kind of a shock to most who were thinking of a sub $3000 price point, or anyone on a strict budget for that matter, but I think at the price point it is, and the technology advances they put into this camera both hardware and software, I think it's worth it. 

P.S. the 7 was a 500-600 premium over the previous xxd line up at the time of it's release. No one really balked at the price because it was a new line... but if you think they took the 50D, and warp/reconstructed it to be what is the 7D, they basically did the same with the 5d2 and 5d3... so....


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 5, 2012)

A $1,000 off coupon.


In all honesty I'm not complaining about the price, just that I don't have the money to afford one right now. I just got engaged and the ring turned out to cost one 5Diii, but I think I made the right choice.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 5, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> A $1,000 off coupon.
> 
> 
> In all honesty I'm not complaining about the price, just that I don't have the money to afford one right now. I just got engaged and the ring turned out to cost one 5Diii, but I think I made the right choice.



congratulations! Now once your married good luck getting approval for new gear haha


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 5, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> A $1,000 off coupon.
> 
> 
> In all honesty I'm not complaining about the price, just that I don't have the money to afford one right now. I just got engaged and the ring turned out to cost one 5Diii, but I think I made the right choice.



I know the feeling. I had to get a ring and the honeymoon. I'm getting married this Saturday.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 5, 2012)

I am fine with the 5D MK III. A little more of a metering upgrade might have been nice, but I think the ISO and A/F improvements are huge over the current 5D MK II


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 5, 2012)

Geez enough threads about the price and trying to justify paying the price. 

The problem is that too many people have waited to upgrade and now they feel like they waited for nothing, or that they should have just updated to the 5DII a year ago. They hung on to their 30D/40D/50D/60D/7Ds patiently and assumed (incorrectly) that the 5DIII would be the exact same price as the 5DII. Now that the 5DIII is out of their price range, they are trying to internally rationalize why it's not worth $3500, even if the simple reason is that they just can't afford it. They are trying to marginalize it, make it seem like it's just a 5DII with improved AF, because after all, it's hard to admit "hey this thing is awesome, I've been waiting on it forever, and I can't have it." It's much easier to tell yourself "meh, it's just a little better than the 5DII, I'm not missing out." (which makes them feel better about now having to get a 5DII). Then the confirmation bias sets in, they only read reviews that make the 5DIII seem not that great, they ignore the praises, and before you know it they genuinely believe it's a crap camera. They post polls talking about what would "justify the price tag." 

I mean usually when people DONT want something they DONT talk about it, why should they care? Yet I see thread after thread of people that supposedly "dont want a 5DIII because it's not worth it," yet they can't shut up about the thing. I know it sucks that it's out of reach for some people, I mean announcement day was the closest thing to Christmas morning that an adult camera enthusiast can experience, and it's a bummer when you realize Santa didn't bring you anything. But have patience, the price will come down and a 5DII is still an awesome, very capable camera (I'm not getting rid of mine).


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > A $1,000 off coupon.
> ...



Congrats to you as well and good luck in the future!


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 5, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...



Thanks! And congrats to Keith also.


----------



## meli (Mar 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Geez enough threads about the price and trying to justify paying the price.
> 
> The problem is that too many people have waited to upgrade and now they feel like they waited for nothing, or that they should have just updated to the 5DII a year ago. They hung on to their 30D/40D/50D/60D/7Ds patiently and assumed (incorrectly) that the 5DIII would be the exact same price as the 5DII. Now that the 5DIII is out of their price range, they are trying to internally rationalize why it's not worth $3500, even if the simple reason is that they just can't afford it. They are trying to marginalize it, make it seem like it's just a 5DII with improved AF, because after all, it's hard to admit "hey this thing is awesome, I've been waiting on it forever, and I can't have it." It's much easier to tell yourself "meh, it's just a little better than the 5DII, I'm not missing out." (which makes them feel better about now having to get a 5DII). Then the confirmation bias sits in, they only read reviews that make the 5DIII seem not that great, they ignore the praises, and before you know it they genuinely believe it's a crap camera. They post polls talking about what would "justify the price tag."
> 
> I mean usually when people DONT want something they DONT talk about it, why should they care? Yet I see thread after thread of people that supposedly "dont want a 5DIII because it's not worth it," yet they can't shut up about the thing. I know it sucks that it's out of reach for some people, I mean announcement day was the closest thing to Christmas morning that an adult camera enthusiast can experience, and it's a bummer when you realize Santa didn't bring you anything. But have patience, the price will come down and a 5DII is still an awesome, very capable camera (I'm not getting rid of mine).



woah slow down mate,

no doubt there're people frustrated cause the M3 turned out of reach but lets not mix everything up, 
its one thing if one can or cant afford it
its another thing if someone will buy it irregardless of cost
its another if someone want to be the first kid on the block
and its *totally another if some feel that the camera is more expensive than it should be, judging by competition/tech*

as far as this gem:


> when people DONT want something they DONT talk about it


 you do realize that some people have invested in the platform and seeing canon jacking up prices all across the board makes them justifiably nervous right?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 5, 2012)

Thanks.

I think we should start a new thread - "I Was Going to Buy a 5Diii, But I Got Married"


----------



## Meh (Mar 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Geez enough threads about the price and trying to justify paying the price.
> 
> The problem is that too many people have waited to upgrade and now they feel like they waited for nothing, or that they should have just updated to the 5DII a year ago. They hung on to their 30D/40D/50D/60D/7Ds patiently and assumed (incorrectly) that the 5DIII would be the exact same price as the 5DII. Now that the 5DIII is out of their price range, they are trying to internally rationalize why it's not worth $3500, even if the simple reason is that they just can't afford it. They are trying to marginalize it, make it seem like it's just a 5DII with improved AF, because after all, it's hard to admit "hey this thing is awesome, I've been waiting on it forever, and I can't have it." It's much easier to tell yourself "meh, it's just a little better than the 5DII, I'm not missing out." (which makes them feel better about now having to get a 5DII). Then the confirmation bias sits in, they only read reviews that make the 5DIII seem not that great, they ignore the praises, and before you know it they genuinely believe it's a crap camera. They post polls talking about what would "justify the price tag."
> 
> I mean usually when people DONT want something they DONT talk about it, why should they care? Yet I see thread after thread of people that supposedly "dont want a 5DIII because it's not worth it," yet they can't shut up about the thing. I know it sucks that it's out of reach for some people, I mean announcement day was the closest thing to Christmas morning that an adult camera enthusiast can experience, and it's a bummer when you realize Santa didn't bring you anything. But have patience, the price will come down and a 5DII is still an awesome, very capable camera (I'm not getting rid of mine).



I love confirmation bias, it's awesome. You're right and you're wrong. 

People are disappointed in the price and many are assessing the improvements in light of the $800-1000 more than what was expected/hoped for and concluded it's not enough of an improvement to justify the price increase. IMHO that's not correct, it is worth the price. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a departure for Canon in that they seem not to be differentiating the high-end bodies with the AF system as much as in the past. The difference between the 1DX and the 5D3 is much less than expectations. Now we have a great AF system in the 1DX, 5D3, and 7D. And at 6 fps, the 5D3 is very capable for sports... it's much more of an all-around camera than the 5D2. Hmmm, times have changed.

Where I think you may be wrong is being too harsh about the complaints about the price. I think it's a valid complaint because the price point to get into FF just went up instead of down and we expect technology to trickle down in electronics over time, the bleeding edge product actually goes up in price but features trickle down into lower priced products making it more affordable... question is whether FF is a feature we can reasonable expect to trickle down into a lower priced body... maybe not. The fact remains though that it just got more expensive to get a FF body which is likely why Canon is keeping the 5D2 in production a while longer.

But let's say Canon introduces a FF 6D that uses the same sensor but cuts back on build quality, AF, fps, has only a single card slot, etc. etc. as an entry level FF body at only $2300 list price... essentially a 5D2 with the new sensor. Would that satisfy the complaints? Would those complaining today recognize that the 5D3 is worth $1200 more than this hypothetical 6D?


----------



## TAR (Mar 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> I think Canon justified the price with the 61point AF and the sensor. The ISO performance from that sensor is incredible. $3500 is a lot, and is certainly more than I expected but I don't think it's overpriced. It might be a tad unfortunate for us but fair. I plan on buying one as soon as I can.



seriously? 61 AF points? i would say canon just catch up with the 4 or 5 year old D300 or D700. They should have put this auto focus on 5DII not on 5D III , metering just transferred form 7D instead of 1DX. competitors were offering top of their metering and AF performance on their FF cameras, canon just use their old tech and selling it for higher prices. only improvement i see in 5d3 is ISO range and small feature set like HDR and speed. they kept the same resolution so increase in iso range justified ..but IMHO there is nothing worth 1000$ more for this camera. canon keep screwing their customers somehow every time.


----------



## Meh (Mar 5, 2012)

TAR said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon justified the price with the 61point AF and the sensor. The ISO performance from that sensor is incredible. $3500 is a lot, and is certainly more than I expected but I don't think it's overpriced. It might be a tad unfortunate for us but fair. I plan on buying one as soon as I can.
> ...



Now, I previously thought Axilrod was being too harsh on the complaints but maybe I hadn't read through enough of them. If this is the typical complaint then Axilrod was right. Quit your whining. Your complaint is way off the mark. If all you see is a small improvement then your eyes must be closed. You must want the whole 1DX just in body labelled 5D3?


----------



## Meh (Mar 5, 2012)

@Axilrod I take back my previous comments. You're absolutely right. +1 to you.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 5, 2012)

Canon 5D III is definitely not worth a single Euro or Dollar more than what Nikon charges for the D800. Overall, difference in resolution and speed even out (depending on field of photography one or the other has an edge) but D800 got AF and metering and all of the other important features top-of the line camera (D4) plus on-board flash to boot. 1/250 to 1/320s X-Sync, USB 3.0 are a given ... unlike the Canon offering, there is nothing withheld for "marketing differentiation" reasons. 

It will be interesting to see how will those two cams will sell and how prices will develop. 

Currently I am more than happy with my 7D ... but if I was in the market for a 3.5k FF body the one additional feature in the 5D III I would consider a price of 3.5k to be "justified" would be a fully-functional 2012 version of Eye Control Focus (ECF). That would be a truly amazing unique selling proposition in the entire market. Helping users with every single capture they take (except the video crowd, which is already more than taken care of). Putting the focus precisely where you want it in a frame ... easily, instantly, intuitively! 1/500s X-sync time, USB 3.0, WIFI and wireless flash remote control built-in would round out the killer package. 

THAT would truly be worth 3.5 k ...


----------



## JR (Mar 5, 2012)

Since I pre-ordered one, I guess the current set of features makes it justifiable for me. In particular I had three items that were must for me:

1- AF system
2- better ISO then the mkII
3- small features like an Auto ISO functions that works in Manual mode...

The mkIII delivers on all three above so I placed the order.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Geez enough threads about the price and trying to justify paying the price.
> 
> The problem is that too many people have waited to upgrade and now they feel like they waited for nothing, or that they should have just updated to the 5DII a year ago. They hung on to their 30D/40D/50D/60D/7Ds patiently and assumed (incorrectly) that the 5DIII would be the exact same price as the 5DII. Now that the 5DIII is out of their price range, they are trying to internally rationalize why it's not worth $3500, even if the simple reason is that they just can't afford it. They are trying to marginalize it, make it seem like it's just a 5DII with improved AF, because after all, it's hard to admit "hey this thing is awesome, I've been waiting on it forever, and I can't have it." It's much easier to tell yourself "meh, it's just a little better than the 5DII, I'm not missing out." (which makes them feel better about now having to get a 5DII). Then the confirmation bias sits in, they only read reviews that make the 5DIII seem not that great, they ignore the praises, and before you know it they genuinely believe it's a crap camera. They post polls talking about what would "justify the price tag."
> 
> I mean usually when people DONT want something they DONT talk about it, why should they care? Yet I see thread after thread of people that supposedly "dont want a 5DIII because it's not worth it," yet they can't shut up about the thing. I know it sucks that it's out of reach for some people, I mean announcement day was the closest thing to Christmas morning that an adult camera enthusiast can experience, and it's a bummer when you realize Santa didn't bring you anything. But have patience, the price will come down and a 5DII is still an awesome, very capable camera (I'm not getting rid of mine).



Funny thing is, when many of us thought it would be $3000 or more, we were told we were out of our mind. 

I am no soothsayer, but not surprised by the price of the 5D MK III, nor the capabilities, and pretty much exactly what I expected to slightly higher... I was thinking more at $3299

Conversely, had the 5D MK III come in at $2700 I would have been surprised. Still would not have had buyer regret, because no matter what, I would have gotten at least 6 months in with the MK II. 

But to the point, I think there is a direct relationship between price/expectation and whether people are happy or not with the announcement


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 5, 2012)

TAR said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon justified the price with the 61point AF and the sensor. The ISO performance from that sensor is incredible. $3500 is a lot, and is certainly more than I expected but I don't think it's overpriced. It might be a tad unfortunate for us but fair. I plan on buying one as soon as I can.
> ...



Yeah, you're not being fair at all. You can't have a 1Dx for $3,500. But you can have its very advanced AF system (with 26 more cross type sensors than the Nikon's system), and you get a sensor with outstanding ISO performance. You get a very good metering system, if you think it's old there could be a point to that but it certainly isn't a bad system. I have the 7D and the metering system works well. I've also heard from people that its build quality is incredible.

It's not feasible for Canon to design brand new components for every camera. Some stuff must be reused.


----------



## TAR (Mar 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> TAR said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...



What about Nikon D4 and D800 they both share the same core technologies ...just open ur eyes ...D800 offers more value for money this what i was trying to point out.


----------



## taxydromos (Mar 5, 2012)

the new pricing policy of canon is over control. canon 5d mark ll 3500 e canon 24-70 f2.8 ll 2300 e
nikon d800 2900 e nikon 24-70 f2.8 1500 e
canon 3500+2300=5800 e
nikon 2900+1500=4400 e 5800-4400= 1400e with extra 100e you can buy the nikon 14-24 f2.8 a great lense that canon has not!!. nikon d800 36mp,auto focus to f8,crop mode 1.2 and 1.5 and better qualite body. bye bye canon.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 5, 2012)

Meh said:


> @Axilrod I take back my previous comments. You're absolutely right. +1 to you.



Haha thank you sir, and of course what I said doesn't apply to everyone. Some people just say "well that's too much to spend on a camera, I guess I'll pass." You were right about me being a little harsh sometimes, and I'm working on that, I just have very little tolerance for ignorance.


----------



## dunkers (Mar 5, 2012)

One thing I would like to point out is that Nikon likes to nickle and dime their customers.


Each new body (regardless of where it stands in terms of hierarchy) has a feature that people want, but no other body has. You will never be fully happy with what body you have because the new one might have a feature you really want. 

For example,
The D7000 had decent video. However, the D5100 received the swivel screen. Those who wanted to use the D7000 a lot for video, now found that the D5100 is better suited thanks to its screen. In order to get that feature, they have to downgrade from the D7000 and sacrifice fps, build quality, etc. Same thing happened for the D300/D90 people. The D300 had better specs overall, but the D90 introduced video. You had to buy a second body to obtain said video feature. Rather then getting a better body, they have to downgrade.


There is always some "outstanding" feature in the newer bodies that can make you upset with the body that you currently have.


On the other hand, Canon makes their camera bodies similar to one another. The features of the higher end model trickle down to the lower end models.

Take the 7D for example. They made a baby version of it as seen with the T2i when it was released. Sure the specs were reduced, but you still had the same image quality just for a much lower price. Canon's strategy seems to be to have a camera body at different price points where you don't sacrifice too many features.

I really like their approach to the 5D MK III. It is basically baby 1DX. Those who don't want to deal with the size of the body, have no need for the monster fps, or the outstanding build quality can settle for the 5D for nearly half the price. You aren't sacrificing that much if you choose one or the other.

Whereas on the Nikon side, the D4 and D800 are meant for completely different tasks. Those who are doing studio photography, would most likely want to purchase the D800. However, they are limited to just doing studio work because the measly fps and possible noise levels aren't ideal for sports and other fields of photography. Canon stuff is geared to work for nearly all fields of photography. The Canon bodies are more "versatile" in that sense.

So yes, I do think that $3500 for the 5D mk III is justifiable.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 5, 2012)

taxydromos said:


> the new pricing policy of canon is over control. canon 5d mark ll 3500 e canon 24-70 f2.8 ll 2300 e
> nikon d800 2900 e nikon 24-70 f2.8 1500 e
> canon 3500+2300=5800 e
> nikon 2900+1500=4400 e 5800-4400= 1400e with extra 100e you can buy the nikon 14-24 f2.8 a great lense that canon has not!!. nikon d800 36mp,auto focus to f8,crop mode 1.2 and 1.5 and better qualite body. bye bye canon.



Did you really create an account just for this? You know what complaining about the price on here does for you? NOTHING. See ya later, have fun over at Nikon Rumors.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 5, 2012)

I am OK with the price but would be over the moon if they threw in the battery grip.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 5, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Funny thing is, when many of us thought it would be $3000 or more, we were told we were out of our mind.
> 
> I am no soothsayer, but not surprised by the price of the 5D MK III, nor the capabilities, and pretty much exactly what I expected to slightly higher... I was thinking more at $3299
> 
> ...



I agree 100%, every thread about price predictions my answer was always $3299-$3499. Plus, we got specs a few weeks before the announcement, and everyone welcomed all of them with open arms...except the price. It must be a mistake they said. It must be the kit price (which would have put the body at $2500, which just seemed ridiculous). The price really shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone, we knew it already, the announcement was just a confirmation. Plus, the rumor that it would be more than $3k has been around for a while.

And the camera is awesome and while people like to compare it to the 5DII, but why not compare it to the 1DX? It shares a lot of the same features and is $3000 cheaper! You can look at it like it costs "that much more" than a 5DII, or that it's "that much less" than the 1DX. I prefer the latter.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 5, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> I am OK with the price but would be over the moon if they threw in the battery grip.



Now that's one thing I agree is overpriced, $500 for a battery grip is insane. The only difference between it and the BG-E6 is that little knob, no way that knob is worth $300.


----------



## Meh (Mar 5, 2012)

@TAR @taxydromos

You may be right, and for you the D4 and/or D800 may be better values. They are great cameras and Nikon will sell you one, I'm sure your money is good with them. Canon saw their announcement before releasing the 5D3 and obviously feels that the market will accept the higher price. If not they will offer some discounts in a few months. A few pros on this site, I won't single them out, might actually switch (not just threaten to do so) to Nikon for the 36MP sensor... they do primarily studio work (generally controlled lighting, slow shooting, static models) and have been begging for a high MP sensor so that they don't need to move up to MF. The 5D3 is a much better all-around camera... build, sensor, AF, metering (yes the 7D meter is great), fps, etc. are all fantastic... studio, sports, low-light, etc. are all within the 5D3 capabilities. It's one sweet ride. Boooooyah!


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 5, 2012)

TAR said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > TAR said:
> ...



They're wide open and I still disagree. I guess I'm not blinded by 36mp

They share metering and AF. That's all.

_Edit: apologies if I'm being too rude. I've been dealing with my credit card company and Microsoft on a dispute all freakin' afternoon_


----------



## Rav (Mar 5, 2012)

Was anyone honestly thinking the mk III would have a lower list price upon introduction than the mk II?
IMO the discussion on performance/cost will only make sense once street prices settle like for every new product...


----------



## distant.star (Mar 5, 2012)

While I plan to buy a 5d3 I don't see what "justifies" the price outside of aggressive business practice. For me, nothing added to it would change my feeling. I've priced products for markets, and I suspect if I had been Canon, I'd have chosen this price too. I priced aggressively. To us consumers, the $3500 seems a shock at first, but I suspect Canon's thinking takes into account:

1. A huge pent up demand that will create strong initial sales. No reason not to milk this and lower the price over time as demand slows -- if it does slow.

2. A sub-$3k price would probably have meant turnover of nearly the entire 5D2 populace, and I don't think they can produce at that level. So, you price a lot of people out at $3500 and give them a 5D2 alternative. That keeps demand at manageable levels that can match profit forecasts. In reality, both products can create images better than what 95% of users need.

So, "justified" doesn't work for me, but I think I understand their motives. We'll agree to disagree, I'll buy the product and we'll both go on our way.

I quoted Benny because that's pretty much my thinking -- as it was when I bought a T2i at half the price (or less) than a 7D two years ago. Obviously, you don't get close to the AF and speed of the 7D with a T2i, but for someone coming back into photography, it was an excellent first DSLR. It gave me a great Canon DSLR education, and I still contend it can take excellent pictures. It also gave me time to acquire some better lenses than I already had with the intent of moving up.

The 5D3 has as much of the 1Dx as I could reasonably need or want. While I'd love to go to the streets with a 1Dx, I can't afford it, and it has far more capability than I need or will ever need. The 5D3, like the Goldilocks porridge, is "just right" for me.




Bennymiata said:


> To me, the 5D3 is really most of a 1Dx for a lot less money.


----------



## Meh (Mar 5, 2012)

distant.star said:


> While I plan to buy a 5d3 I don't see what "justifies" the price outside of aggressive business practice. For me, nothing added to it would change my feeling. I've priced products for markets, and I suspect if I had been Canon, I'd have chosen this price too. I priced aggressively. To us consumers, the $3500 seems a shock at first, but I suspect Canon's thinking takes into account:
> 
> 1. A huge pent up demand that will create strong initial sales. No reason not to milk this and lower the price over time as demand slows -- if it does slow.
> 
> ...



Well put... there is no doubt Canon wants as much of our money as they can get. I'm ok with that, it's business not personal. Canon doesn't have to justify the price to anyone but shareholders. And they will sell many many many 5D3 at this price. If it's too much for someone, they can wait another 6-12 months until the first price reductions show up. I'm not angry that I can't afford a Ferrari.


----------



## timkbryant (Mar 5, 2012)

Personally, I do think the price is quite high.

BUT, I'm not a professional photog who can afford the latest and the greatest. I want this camera because it seems to me that it will be more than I need at the moment, but a wonderful tool to help my craft. Yes, I know the equipment doesn't make the photog, but it can't hurt.

I simply acknowledge I don't know any better to properly chastise Canon for offering up this tool to us at $3500. It is what it is for me, and I will have to live with it. Or not. No one is telling me I HAVE to buy it.

So while I wish this camera was $1000 cheaper, I choose to willingly bite the bullet and buy it. In a few months. When I have accumulated sufficient capital to do so.


----------



## WoodysGamertag (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, I guess I could have picked "nothing" since I ordered it. However, if there is something I really with it had it would be slow motion video. Maybe 120fps at 640x480? I could do really great things with that.


----------



## Blaze (Mar 5, 2012)

Canon obviously can't please everyone, but the 5DIII really is a massive step up from the 5DII.


It now has a tougher, better sealed body (with optional matching quality built grip).
HUGE improvement in auto-focus.
Significant improvement in high ISO capability (on paper anyway)
Much faster continuous shooting
Tons of little improvements (screen, ergonomics, *dual cards*, viewfinder, HDR, etc.)

For my purposes, the specs are way more attractive than the D800. I have no need for 36 MP and the increased bother of dealing with larger files. Even with fast lenses, I'm very often pushing the limits of high ISO, so the 5DIII really wins there. 6 fps is just fast enough to shoot sports (although I'll miss the 8 fps on my 7D). The D800 only does 4 fps (you need a grip and crop mode to get 6 fps... very limiting).

For those that want MF resolution in a FF body for studio work, the D800E is probably more attractive. If this turns out to be a hot market, I'm sure Canon has something in development to compete with it.

As far as whether or not the price is "justified", that doesn't even seem like right question to ask. Are the improvements worth it to you? I'm guessing there's a huge demand for the 5DIII even at the current price point. If Canon can sell them at that price to willing customers, there's no reason they shouldn't. Remember, businesses are designed to make money. They might not even be able to match production to initial demand if priced sub-$3k.

Personally, I have no _immediate_ need for the 5DII so I can afford to wait and see if the price comes down in the months to come and for reviews on sensor performance and real world testing to see whether or not it lives up to its specs on paper.

In my mind, it really is most of the good stuff from a 1DX in a smaller cheaper package. I would have loved for it to have 1080p @ 60 fps and 720p @ 120 fps video, a bit higher continuous shooting rate, the 1DX metering, and a $2500 price tag, but I realize Canon doesn't cater specifically to me and I can't always have exactly what I want at a price I can afford.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 5, 2012)

_What would make 3.5k for 5DmIII justifiable for you?_

No more 50D iso 1600.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 5, 2012)

dunkers said:


> One thing I would like to point out is that Nikon likes to nickle and dime their customers.



hahahaha, I feel way more nickel and dimed by Canon, charging extra for things like simple lens hoods ... about the only manufacturer in the entire industry who does NOT include them with many lenses ... even when they cost 800+ Euro (eg. EF-S 17-55) - way more than some L- lenses (e.g,. 17-40, 70-200/4, ...). In addition it is often a real hassle to get hold of these freaking parts! Now thats NICKLE and DIME.

Or have you had a look at the prices for essential 5D III accessories? 
Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT US: $629.99 / EUR: €699 / UK: £679.99
Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT US: $470 / EUR: €320 / UK: £309.99
Canon Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E7 US: $849.99 / EUR: €759 / UK: £789.99
Canon GPS Receiver GP-E2 US: $390 / EUR: €279 / UK: £299.99
Canon Battery Grip BG-E11 US: $490 / EUR: €380 / UK: £329.99

by the way, nickle and dime: the 600EX-RT sells for € 699,- the 600EX (without wireless remote) is listed for € 659 ,- ... so the VALUE of the wireless remote part is what ... exactly: € 40,- ... now generously double that, if it is a free-standing unit ... so how come, the ST-E3 does not cost € 80,- but € 320,- ??? 
That is "nickel and dime" at its very worst. As a matter of fact, a monopolist-priced pocketwizard would cost less ... and with a range of 100m instead of 30 meters.

Canon has just gone bonkers with their 5D III plus related pricing. They wil get away with it for the first wave. But not for long. Thats for sure.


----------



## capertillar (Mar 5, 2012)

imo, specs are great. i just think canon is trying to take advantage of the hype and ppl who want it for the Olympics. I don't blame them for trying to make the extra buck from those willing to pay, but I also have to say it sucks for those of us who can't justify the price. 

however, I do hope the price comes down to 3000 after the Olympics.. or at least by xmas...


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 5, 2012)

My expectation was improved IQ, DR, ISO performance and AF. Now on paper, it has the improved ISO performance and AF in place. Mark 3 needs to really impress me with its IQ and DR for me to cough up 3.5K though... Will be awaiting reviews from production cameras to decide...

Cheers!


----------



## benperrin (Mar 5, 2012)

I'll be buying a mkIII to compliment my mkII but not strait away. Maybe October or so. Looking at the example images on the Canon website I am very impressed with the noise at iso 3200 and would probably even start using iso 6400 if I really had to. All the other things like decreased shutter lag, way better af, improved dynamic range and 22mp are appealing to me. The only thing that I wish it had was 50 fps at 1080p or 100fps at 720p (I use PAL). If magic lantern can add this to the camera then I will definitely be very happy to purchase the mkIII.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2012)

I wish you had put no AA filter as an option
but i chose full 1Dx AF


----------



## meli (Mar 6, 2012)

OP here; 
I do sense a defensive stance from some people that already preordered the camera or they're about to, and perhaps its my fault cause i should had clarify it a bit better.
There're a million good reasons to buy M3, the question of this thread is whether you feel that the 500$ gap over the competition is justified, objectively and with the info we have so far.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 6, 2012)

If it were hand delivered by Mila Kunis, Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie and then they decided to stay over for the weekend.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 6, 2012)

WoodysGamertag said:


> Well, I guess I could have picked "nothing" since I ordered it. However, if there is something I really with it had it would be slow motion video. Maybe 120fps at 640x480? I could do really great things with that.



My fuji X10 can do that 
actually i am pretty impressed with the video on that little puppy. super clean at 3200 iso
(disclaimer i really know very little about video at all and i only shot 1 vid on the x10 in HD)


----------



## Meh (Mar 6, 2012)

unfocused said:


> If it were hand delivered by Mila Kunis, Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie and then they decided to stay over for the weekend.



Has to be all three or would just one suffice?


----------



## meli (Mar 8, 2012)

distant.star said:


> While I plan to buy a 5d3 I don't see what "justifies" the price outside of aggressive business practice. For me, nothing added to it would change my feeling. I've priced products for markets, and I suspect if I had been Canon, I'd have chosen this price too. I priced aggressively. To us consumers, the $3500 seems a shock at first, but I suspect Canon's thinking takes into account:
> 
> 1. A huge pent up demand that will create strong initial sales. No reason not to milk this and lower the price over time as demand slows -- if it does slow.
> 
> ...




Sound argument, and of course, as Canon has the right to set their price wherever they feel like there's enough stock to milk, so the userbase has the right to judge them.
I dont think that many will go: "Hey Canon's latest price policy is retarded but hey they just do it cause they want to milk users so its ok!"

actually this might be my main gripe with Canon, I think they feel way too comfortable with their userbase


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 8, 2012)

To be honest, I think the 5d3 is not THAT far of justified in terms of price. It's about £500 out. While £500 is a lot of money of course, I don't think it's badly priced...


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > A $1,000 off coupon.
> ...



+1....and the camera I brought with me to honeymoom was P&S :-\


----------



## 5dmk.iii (Mar 8, 2012)

meli said:


> *even more actually, i think d700 had higher MSRP than 5dII



and look what happened to Noink's market share after that elitist pricing strategy... Canon is copying Nikon from 4 years ago.... Avis is beggining to act like Hertz.


----------



## DBCdp (Mar 8, 2012)

I really did want to get the 5D3, had even already sold off my 5D, and planned on selling the 7D to pair the new 5 with the 5D2. But couldn't go the price. Just wasn't prepared for hike after it'd been rumored at 2700-3000. For me it was about keeping up the IQ, with the AF system upgrade. Not that I think it's not worth it, just couldn't swing it. So I looked around and found a nice 1Ds MkII to give me the AF capabilities and keep the IQ. We'll see what the 5 is doing next year. 

Funny thing though, if a few thousand people would have simply sat on their opinions, the folks at Canon wouldn't have been so sure themselves and we'd have seen it at the competitors mark. So I believe all the hooplah here and elsewhere set the bar. The squeaky wheel and all that.


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 9, 2012)

If people unanimously hailed this as an amazing camera and a huge step up from the 5DII.
Instead I see it as an improvement in all the expected ways, and I actually see some mixed reviews out there.
I have actually seen quite a bit of bad press about this camera from people looking at the sample photos(black outlines, similar DR to 5DII, soft images, poor HDR rendering.) I'm not sure if these are facts or just poor samples/firmware but my mind has not been blown by this camera yet.
I see no evidence that this camera is significantly better than the Nikon offering.
At this point, I'd rather just have an exact 5DII with the 7D AF and have it be 2500 dollars for preorder(I cant see why this isn't doable 3.5 years later.)


----------



## gene_can_sing (Mar 9, 2012)

If it's TRUE 1000 lines of resolution for the video instead of the current up-res'd 700 lines, I would buy it in a second. If not, I am waiting for the 4K VDSLR.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 9, 2012)

seems like on internet forums gather the whiners.

i mean.... 5D MK3 is on amazons top list for days... so the price seems to be no such big problem as some make it.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 9, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> seems like on internet forums gather the whiners.
> 
> i mean.... 5D MK3 is on amazons top list for days... so the price seems to be no such big problem as some make it.


r u sure??


----------



## Astro (Mar 9, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > seems like on internet forums gather the whiners.
> ...



yep i am sure, i have followed it since march 4 and it was in top spot or in the top 3.

and place no. 3 today is still very good.








amazon japan:


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 9, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > seems like on internet forums gather the whiners.
> ...



well you can see it yourself or not?
it is in the top 10 list or not.. so why do you ask?


----------



## Joellll (Mar 9, 2012)

The way I see this, most people are surprised by the fact that Nikon provided a counterpart with higher megapickles and a cheaper msrp than canon did.

Had Nikon not released the D800, I suppose there will be less unhappy talk.

5D2 was and still is a great camera. Canon decided to keep both is a wise decision. It is still better than reusing old technology and label it as a new camera, like the 1000D. If we see the 5D2 as a affordable entry DSLR everything would make a lot more sense.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 9, 2012)

The values is set both in absolute terms of what it offers to me and in relative to what competition offers in the price range.

5D3 only offers additional 1 FPS over the D800. Everyhing else the D800 beats the 5D3 hands down (as far as I currently know). Even if the 5D3 had offered same low ISO DR and high ISO noise as D800, but still 22MP, the only 1 additional FPS had not justified the price.

With full 1DX AF and meetering, 22MP, but same DR and high ISO noise as D800, and the 6 FPS the reasonable price would have been same as for D800.

To justify this price they need full 1DX AF and meetering and 46MP at 5FPS (same pixels as in their crops but improved, especially in DR), 38MP at 5.5FPS, 32MP at 6FPS, 27MP at 6.5 FPS, 23MP at 7FPS, 20MP at 7.5 FPS, 18MP at 8FPS.
This would be the fully fusion of 5D2 and 7D.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 9, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon-F1 said:
> ...


My fault, I thought your were saying top of the list


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 9, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> The values is set both in absolute terms of what it offers to me and in relative to what competition offers in the price range.
> 
> 5D3 only offers additional 1 FPS over the D800. Everyhing else the D800 beats the 5D3 hands down (as far as I currently know). Even if the 5D3 had offered same low ISO DR and high ISO noise as D800, but still 22MP, the only 1 additional FPS had not justified the price.
> 
> ...



I have to add one more thing the 5D3 offers over the D800 and that is EF mount as if important since Canon lenses, as a total, is better than Nikons.


----------



## zim (Mar 9, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The price of $3500 would be justified to me if...
> 
> * there were 13 or more stops of DR in the photos and nothing less
> * there was 1 (preferably 2) or more stops of improvement in signal to noise from ISO 100 through to ISO 6400
> ...




Dilbert says it all for me (in RAW photos) Everything else is ‘nice to have’ (for me) that’s why I’m waiting on proper analysis before I decide. (the OP doesn’t have that as one of the options)

PS thanks for the smite WTF!!!


----------



## kalmiya (Mar 9, 2012)

My wife made it very clear this morning: unless you can drive in it, it's a no-go ^^


----------



## meli (Mar 11, 2012)

@ dilbert & Zim
I've thought about adding an option concerning sensor features (such as snr, color & DR) but i decided against it cause there would be people saying: "well we dont know nothing about the sensor and it might as well be etc" and they would have a point, although the fact that Canon hasnt been touting about it in their marketing is kinda disheartening.


----------



## x-vision (Mar 12, 2012)

I think this poll is missing the following option: "nothing, i think the price is *not* justified (as i'm only a hobbyist)".

All of the updates on the 5DIII are very welcome. As a hobbyist, though, I cannot justify $3500.
I was all set to make the switch to FF and was eagerly waiting for the 5DIII to do it - expecting the same intro price as the 5DII. 
Alas, my switch to FF is on hold for now .


----------



## twdi (Mar 12, 2012)

What about the reason:

just because I like to take great pictures, 
enjoy life 
and life can be over tomorrow?


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 12, 2012)

x-vision said:


> I think this poll is missing the following option: "nothing, i think the price is *not* justified (as i'm only a hobbyist)".
> 
> All of the updates on the 5DIII are very welcome. As a hobbyist, though, I cannot justify $3500.
> I was all set to make the switch to FF and was eagerly waiting for the 5DIII to do it - expecting the same intro price as the 5DII.
> Alas, my switch to FF is on hold for now .



Well, there's never been a better time than now to purchase the MK2  - You can save some cash, and know you are getting a very favorable body. 

I was in the same boat as your, but I feel perfectly fine with the $3500 price tag.


----------



## dwischnewski (Mar 12, 2012)

For all those, who think that the price got higher, here is an interesting article: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days/

Confirms my gut feelings. Thankfully someone did the math. Yet, I do not like the "new price" so much myself.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2012)

dwischnewski said:


> For all those, who think that the price got higher, here is an interesting article: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days/
> 
> Confirms my gut feelings. Thankfully someone did the math. Yet, I do not like the "new price" so much myself.



all those pseudo-economic "justifications" from a "poor manufacterer in Japan" are completeley irrelevant and does not change anything. Truth is: 5D III is definitely not worth more than Nikon D800 ... from a photographers/purchasers perspective. Actually, to me it should be priced a couple 100 Euros lower, since the D800 can and do full double duty as FF-camera (superior to 5D III based on early indications of image quality) and as APS-C camera and has both ... top-AF module (as D4) and top-metering module (as D4) as well as matching any other feature of the 5D III. 

Now go and smite me if you want ... but be warned: it won't change the truth.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 12, 2012)

Yet for some reason Nikon managed to have a better price. 

While the cameras seem to have different aims nevertheless there is no feeling that the D800 is somewhat inferior. 

For me personally it looks even other way around the 5D3 being inferior but this is a *personal opinion* based on: 
* less DR than the competition (Sony, Nikon, Fuji)
* still banding though a bit better compared to the 5D2, limiting even more useful DR
* Nikon has full pro-AF in the D800
* Nikon D800 has full weather sealing
* I'd have liked more MP



dwischnewski said:


> For all those, who think that the price got higher, here is an interesting article: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days/
> 
> Confirms my gut feelings. Thankfully someone did the math. Yet, I do not like the "new price" so much myself.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 12, 2012)

User interchangeable focusing screens would be nice.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 12, 2012)

Increased Dynamic Range performance (at least on par with the new Nikon) seems to be the new thing that would make the 5D mk3 price (un)justifiable for some people.


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 12, 2012)

None of the above options justify the price for me.
My opinion is they would have to improve that function poorly in 5D2 with things already used in series 1 (Dsmk3 or Dmk4, not the DX) and maintaining an affordable price for a full frame version. For a more expensive version (over2500US$), only if the market demands, would have to release 3D or something like. For Canon top tech we have 1 series already.


----------



## meli (Mar 12, 2012)

twdi said:


> What about the reason:
> 
> just because I like to take great pictures,
> enjoy life
> and life can be over tomorrow?



Well, it would be kinda retarded if in a poll about the *technical side of a tool*, inside a *product forum*, between 6 other options *concerning hardware parameters*, i had also:

# Yes! because I like to take great pictures, enjoy life and long walks in the beach with my 5d hanging on my neck and albatross flying majestically in the horizon

If that's what you want to talk about, then i suggest you look for another forum.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 12, 2012)

A big raise, or winning a four digits lottery prize.

Personally, I'm waiting for the price to go down.


----------

