# Canon's bad marketing - big mistake



## Hage (Mar 29, 2012)

I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now. My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes. Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography. Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me. Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years. 2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level. I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3. 

After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700. I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect. Except for resolution (and video). The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment. Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700. 

Now we see the same thing happening with the D800 and the 5D 3. I am absolutely convinced that the 5D 3 for the majority of people will be a far better and more versatile camera than the D800. Except for resolution (and maybe sharpness). But, just like a few years ago, that is exactly what people want at this moment. My guess is that Nikon will be selling truckloads and truckloads more of the D800 than Canon of the 5D 3. Let's not forget that the whole media landscape currently is about high, higher and highest resolution. 

Nikon and Sony, 2 of the biggest multinationals in photography equipment, have picked the card of high resolution. That alone should say enough. If you want to sell a lot of your product, than give the people what the people wants. As the Romans already knew. That's the most basic rule in marketing. Canon doesn't seem to be willing to accept that as a fact. If and when the market dictates the need for high resolution cameras, than it's very foolish and dangerous to neglect that. The 5D 3 may be as good as it gets, but taking a look at photos from the D800 makes my stomach turn with envy. Never seen anything like this from a DSLR. The amount of detail is simply from another planet and makes the 5D 3 look rather pale. 

I am convinced of the fact that a good photographer needs to study the composition of his photo before taking it. But I can assure you that many of these so called very good photographers will be cropping on the D800 photos like never before, applying the rule of thirds, etc. in post processing and presenting stunning photographs. Of course they will never admit this, but nonetheless Nikon gives them the perfect tool to do this, without being noticed by the majority of people. 

I, for myself, will not be turning to Nikon, because I have too much invested in Canon glass and I'm not making any money out of my photography. So I won't buy the D800. Guess I will be sticking with my 40D for another while. I have the money, but I won't buy the 5D 3 either, because next to each other the photos of the 5D 3 aren't worth looking at when compared to those of the D800. We're not even talking about the price difference here. I am a faithfull Canon customer, but very disapointed in Canon's marketing strategy. Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money. But that's only my opinion.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 29, 2012)

You're gonna fit right in here. 

However, joking aside - there are many of us who agree with you. I posted up a week or two ago that I would not be surprised if Canon's entire market research department has been fired. Some one dropped the ball with respect to "what consumers want." 

Nikon hit the market spot on. Canon flubbed it up this time around. Give it time... Canon will respond.


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 29, 2012)

Japanese companies don't work in strict compartments like most US companies. They work in teams and decide using consensus across the executive suite. I doubt the marketing team is quaking.

I do think it will be interesting to see if the 5D Mark III is the right camera for this time and if it appeals to large enough market to be profitable. As someone wrote in another posting, I agree that it is ideal for working wedding and event photographers and it is fast enough with the right features (fast and accurate autofocus and tracking) that it will appeal to many sports photographers. The gear heads here have snapping them up like they were selling for $1500. So we shall see...


----------



## Alker (Mar 29, 2012)

Fired ??
What a nonsense. 
Because the 5d mark iii has only 22mp ?

By the way you can find this post on all other forums to. 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=41064869


What is the idea of this kind of topics ?

Don't like it ?
Don't buy it.


----------



## Hage (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes, I've posted this message on Dpreview to, because this whole thing is leaving me quite frustrated, as I am sure, many others too.


----------



## Alker (Mar 29, 2012)

Why frustrated ????
Is there something I missed ??


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 29, 2012)

Even though I strongly believe that 36MP is overkill for *most* people, I also see a lot of people who like as many MP as they can get because they've been told for SO long that more MP is better. Not better for some jobs, or some people. Or better up to a certain level. Just better.

So, while I think canon did an amazing job with the 5d3 (so far given the reports), I do wonder whether the sector of the market that *wants* rather than *needs* more MP really can appreciate that or even make use of it.

At the same time I do feel for those who have a 5dii who have nothing to upgrade to through since better AF, dual card slots and 1/2 to 1 stop better ISO etc.... isn't worth anything to them. On the plus side, it saves them some money ... for now 

Sooo.... this is probably a long way of saying that I sort of agree with you. I think maybe the market wasn't ready for a camera where a lot of people only see the stat which says it's increased by 1MP.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 29, 2012)

People's frustrations have almost nothing to do with the 5D3 but rather with the D800. If Nikon didn't release a 36MP camera, the tone of the discussion would have been very different. It simply seems to me that many people can't stand the situation that the competitor has a better camera on paper.


----------



## altenae (Mar 29, 2012)

You have a 40d and you don't see an upgrade into moving to a 5d mark iii ??
Now everything about Canon sucks because Nikon has a 36mp ???????

Come on there is more to photography then only the camera. 
Like we all need 36mp now and a DR of 14. 

All photographers in the world are not able to make good images anymore after the Nikon D800 was announced.


----------



## gabriele (Mar 29, 2012)

Well marketing is mainly for people who don't know a lot about cameras.
I'm not saying it has no influence on professionals too, but professionals know cameras quite well and they know perfectly megapixels aren't everything. It's not like selling a stupid compact crappy 16Mpixels camera to random John Doe because he is SURE 16Mpixel are better because they're more and it's a newer camera so it MUST be better than 12Mpixel...then he doesn't even know what a backlit sensor is and why you get better pictures in a compact camera with 12Mpixel backlit sensor than a standard 16Mpixel one...but that's John Doe, not pro photographer.


----------



## marcust (Mar 29, 2012)

I think the main problem going in the DSLR world is that too many people think higher MP bodies are a cure all for poor skills. 
Like everyone complaining about the 24-70II not having IS. ( Who all is planning on using this lens at an air show in AI servo mode?) Really,,,,,

Just because Canon didnt go with 80MP in the 5DIII, people think they were shortchanged.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2012)

Hage said:


> Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.



It may cost them _your_ money. They're not getting _my_ money for the 5DIII either, but that's only because 18 MP is plenty for me, so they're getting double the amount of my money for the 1D X. But you and I are in the minority. There are lots of people with a 5DII who really only need a better AF and they'll have the perfect camera - the 5DIII fits the bill. There are even more people with a Canon APS-C body who didn't get a 5DII because of the AF, and the 5DIII fits that bill, too. Canon will be raking in money hand over fist from the 5DIII. Oh, and just as a little bonus, they're going to keep selling the 5DII at its new lower price point for a while, and making significant profit from that, too.


----------



## VirtualRain (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't get the fascination with more megapixels... especially amongst amateur photographers that will never ever be able to appreciate that kind of resolution in print or especially on screen. I'm all for better image quality, but I don't think having a sensor that out resolves most of the lenses I can afford that can only be appreciated on poster sized prints or billboards is the answer to that. WTF are people doing that needs 36MP?!


----------



## nehemiah (Mar 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hage said:
> 
> 
> > Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.
> ...



I agree with this. Those of you feeling bad for Canon because they may not (in your opinion) make enough money from the 5D3 -- I think they'll be just fine.


----------



## Hage (Mar 30, 2012)

Let me put it in another way. If you're in for a new computer and you buy the latest core i7, nobody finds that strange. Everybody finds it normal that you buy the latest technology. When you're in for a new camera and you want to buy a 36 Mp one, because that is the latest technology too, everybody on the Canon forums finds that strange. Why is that ? It is in the human nature to want the newest products at the latest technology. Otherwise we would all still be listening to cassettes and LP's. I might agree that 36 Mp is not for everyone, nor for every day use. But at least people should have a choice. Now many people simply don't have that choice because they're stuck with either Canon or Nikon. As an all time Canon user I too find it very hard to admit, but the detail in (some of) the D800 pics is just off the scale.


----------



## VirtualRain (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> Let me put it in another way. If you're in for a new computer and you buy the latest core i7, nobody finds that strange. Everybody finds it normal that you buy the latest technology. When you're in for a new camera and you want to buy a 36 Mp one, because that is the latest technology too, everybody on the Canon forums finds that strange. Why is that ? It is in the human nature to want the newest products at the latest technology. Otherwise we would all still be listening to cassettes and LP's. I might agree that 36 Mp is not for everyone, nor for every day use. But at least people should have a choice. Now many people simply don't have that choice because they're stuck with either Canon or Nikon. As an all time Canon user I too find it very hard to admit, but the detail in (some of) the D800 pics is just off the scale.



It's about balance. You can't just look at one spec like sensor resolution or CPU speed when you buy a product... it's the system as a whole and how it performs for you that matters. Just because I can buy a dual CPU 12-Core monster Mac Pro, doesn't mean I can come even close to utilizing that power. 

Of course, everyone needs to look at what's holding their photography back and decide who offers the better solution to that bottleneck. For me, it's keeper rate on focus and the noise in low light that's a problem for me. Although more MP might help, that's not the best and only answer.

If you've been on the cusp of breaking out as a fashion or landscape photographer that can make good money, but your current 20MP camera is holding you back, then maybe an affordable 36MP body is just what you need. 

At any rate, I don't think it's Canon's marketing that's the problem. It's just your needs are not in Canon's target market. But mine happen to be.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> Let me put it in another way. If you're in for a new computer and you buy the latest core i7, nobody finds that strange. Everybody finds it normal that you buy the latest technology. When you're in for a new camera and you want to buy a 36 Mp one, because that is the latest technology too, everybody on the Canon forums finds that strange. Why is that ?



Because that's not a very good analogy.

Imagine instead we're discussing sports cars. Do you buy the one with the biggest engine displacement, or the one that has the highest top speed / shortest time on the course?

Megapickles are important, yes, but mostly in the sense that you're not going to make it through the race without at least so many. But, just as your sports car is going to get smoked on the track if you've got lousy breaks and so-so steering, your high-megapickle camera is going to give you worse pictures at the wedding / sports arena / wildlife preserve than the low-megapickle one if it can't achieve good focus, if it's got a slow framerate, etc., etc., etc.

Now, if you're just doing straight-line quarter-mile drag racing, the car with the biggest engine displacement is probably the one to bet on. Similarly, if you're just doing studio photography with studio lighting and what-not, the high-megapickle camera is probably the one you want. But do keep in mind that the top-fuel dragster will laugh at your silly hotrod, as will the medium and large format cameras at your puny SLR. But did you ever try to pop down to the market for a bag of groceries in a top-fuel dragster, or take party snapshots with an 8" x 10" view camera?

Horses for courses, and all that.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 30, 2012)

Canon has a solid installed base who has invested in lense for the Canon mount. All they needed was give them a solid option with the MKIII and they have delivered. So they might loose 5% to Nikon but they will also gain alot of wedding photographers who will come over. So they got their strategy right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> Let me put it in another way. If you're in for a new computer and you buy the latest core i7, nobody finds that strange. Everybody finds it normal that you buy the latest technology. When you're in for a new camera and you want to buy a 36 Mp one, because that is the latest technology too, everybody on the Canon forums finds that strange. Why is that ? It is in the human nature to want the newest products at the latest technology.



So, you're suggesting the 5DIII is outdated technology? Ouch. On what do you base that assertion? The D800 has a slower frame rate, and the 5DIII offers a 50% higher specification there. What's outdated now?

Let's look further at your analogy. Which is better - a Core i7 with a slower clock speed and an HDD, or a Core i5 with a faster clock speed, more RAM, and an SSD? Different systems perform better in different applications, but for many needs the i5 in that configuration will perform better, 'outdated' or not. Now...with a card full of 36 MP images to process, you're going to need that Core i7 _and_ tons of RAM _and_ the SSD...and you'll probably still need a pot to brew some tea while you wait...


----------



## Hage (Mar 30, 2012)

Ever wondered that it might actually be fun watching your high res pics on a high def television ?


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 30, 2012)

Like this comment from Neil Van Neikerk


I do agree. We’re at a point where, if you can’t make your images work with any of the top choices … Nikon D3s / Nikon D4 / Nikon D800 / Canon 5D Mark III / Canon 1D-x … then photography might not be your *thing*.

Really, the only limitation now is our own creativity. We’ve NEVER had it this good before in the entire history of photography.

Neil vN


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> Ever wondered that it might actually be fun watching your high res pics on a high def television ?



Lol - sure, it would. Break out that fancy Core i7 computer of yours and Google "1080p resolution". Then open the calculator widget and multiply 1920 x 1080. Do you honestly think there's a difference downsampling from 36 MP vs. 22 MP to view images on a 2 MP display. :

The phrase, "Quit while you're behind," keeps popping into my head, for some reason.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 30, 2012)

You analogy works for the computer business as well. I am a Windows user, I use a bunch of software packages that are Windows only. It _would_ be strange if I wanted to convert entirely to OSX. I would have to buy not only new hardware but also new software and actually learn it. Doesn't make sense even if there are a few features that I do not have access to right now.

As for the D800, yes the details are pretty amazing but are for meaningless out of context. If we're talking about huge prints and excessive cropping syndrome, yes, the extra MPs play an important role. But if we'll be honest for a moment, the vast majority of work ends up mostly in digital form on the web. A year from now when there will be plenty of D800s and 5D3s on the market, I challenge you to browse the top images on flickr or 500px and guess which camera was used in each photo. You won't be able to tell.


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 30, 2012)

The ONLY advantage I can think of for 36 MP as a wedding photographer is to satisfy all those brides who think they know as much about photography as you do and demand to know what camera you shoot with. If you tell them you shoot with the 5d3 (Just got mine, LOVE it so far!) at 22 MP and another photographer tells her that they shoot with the D800 at 36MP, the bride might make the misinformed decision to go with the other guy. 

Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I just moved to the Portland area, and I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy! 

And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability. (Even though I shoot with some of the best stuff! Go figure!)


----------



## VirtualRain (Mar 30, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> The ONLY advantage I can think of for 36 MP as a wedding photographer is to satisfy all those brides who think they know as much about photography as you do and demand to know what camera you shoot with. If you tell them you shoot with the 5d3 (Just got mine, LOVE it so far!) at 22 MP and another photographer tells her that they shoot with the D800 at 36MP, the bride might make the misinformed decision to go with the other guy.
> 
> Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I just moved to the Portland area, and I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy!
> 
> And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability. (Even though I shoot with some of the best stuff! Go figure!)



Crazy! But perhaps they're just wanting to make sure you're not going to show up with a Rebel or a Point and shoot. If they're fussy about what prosumer DSLR you're using, then they're probably more trouble than they're worth!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2012)

Ok, I'm going to apologize for the threadjack, but I'll use the fact that I really don't see this thread as going anywhere useful as an excuse.



Tcapp said:


> ...I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy!
> 
> And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability.



This was posted here a while back, seems relevant to your concerns:

Wedding Photography


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 30, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY advantage I can think of for 36 MP as a wedding photographer is to satisfy all those brides who think they know as much about photography as you do and demand to know what camera you shoot with. If you tell them you shoot with the 5d3 (Just got mine, LOVE it so far!) at 22 MP and another photographer tells her that they shoot with the D800 at 36MP, the bride might make the misinformed decision to go with the other guy.
> ...



Well, I would hope you can tell by looking at my photos that I don't uses a point and shoot!! I'd be pretty impressed with a photographer who was skilled enough to do what I do with a PS camera! 

I might not be a Canon "explorer of light" ambassador, but I like to think my photos are pretty good!


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, I'm going to apologize for the threadjack, but I'll use the fact that I really don't see this thread as going anywhere useful as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually just printed a contract out for her, I thought I was meeting with a real bride! JK. 
Some people are almost that bad! But I've been pretty lucky so far to have some amazing brides. Some can be difficult, but most are amazing. I keep about half of my clients as friends after the wedding!


----------



## kdsand (Mar 30, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> The ONLY advantage I can think of for 36 MP as a wedding photographer is to satisfy all those brides who think they know as much about photography as you do and demand to know what camera you shoot with. If you tell them you shoot with the 5d3 (Just got mine, LOVE it so far!) at 22 MP and another photographer tells her that they shoot with the D800 at 36MP, the bride might make the misinformed decision to go with the other guy.
> 
> Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I just moved to the Portland area, and I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy!
> 
> And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability. (Even though I shoot with some of the best stuff! Go figure!)



Its how you use it that matters ....... walked right into that one. ;D

I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable. :-\


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 30, 2012)

[/quote]

I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable. :-\
[/quote]

True, but like I said, the majority of them are awesome. Anyway, it beats working for a corporate slave-driver.


----------



## rlarsen (Mar 30, 2012)

If Canon's marketing is so bad why has the release of their newest camera been so extraordinary ? I've never seen anything like it and I've been a pro for 36 years. 
It seems that many people are convinced Canon will never introduce any other cameras other than the coming 1-DX.

For people who demand extremely high-megapixel cameras they are available to purchase today. And if the new Nikon is what your demanding work requires you're in luck ! No need to complain, you can purchase them, or large format cameras. How have these people survived up until now.

For years I wished the 5D MKll had a faster motordrive, better AF, and a more robust body. Since it didn't have those features, I used other cameras for my work and survived quite well.

For years I've seen huge, wonderful photographs on the walls inside galleries and even bigger ones on walls outside buildings. What's the problem, really ?


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 30, 2012)

I am not sure I agree with you, I am on the sidelines waiting to decide. However, I don't think your argument is logical in that you won't upgrade from a 40D because it isn't a D800, and you won't switch to a Nikon. Shouldn't you base your decision to upgrade on what you will stick with- Canon? You should compare canon offerings to determine if the camera is limiting your photography, and decide on that? Just makes more sense to me.

I won't switch to Nikon, and am waiting a bit to pull the trigger on the 5DIII.



Hage said:


> I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now. My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes. Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography. Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me. Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years. 2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level. I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3.
> 
> After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700. I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect. Except for resolution (and video). The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment. Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700.
> 
> ...


----------



## gmrza (Mar 30, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> You analogy works for the computer business as well. I am a Windows user, I use a bunch of software packages that are Windows only. It _would_ be strange if I wanted to convert entirely to OSX. I would have to buy not only new hardware but also new software and actually learn it. Doesn't make sense even if there are a few features that I do not have access to right now.
> 
> As for the D800, yes the details are pretty amazing but are for meaningless out of context. If we're talking about huge prints and excessive cropping syndrome, yes, the extra MPs play an important role. But if we'll be honest for a moment, the vast majority of work ends up mostly in digital form on the web. A year from now when there will be plenty of D800s and 5D3s on the market, I challenge you to browse the top images on flickr or 500px and guess which camera was used in each photo. You won't be able to tell.



Most wedding photographers probably have massive prints hanging on the wall at their studio, of shots that were taken with a 1DsII or a 5D classic. The newer kids on the block probably all have a 20" x 30" print from a 5DII image on the wall. As you've rightly pointed out: DSLRs have matured, and as Niel v Niekerk points out that if you can't get a decent image off any of the pro /semi-pro cameras that the manufacturers now have on the market, photography is probably not your thing. - It's not about the camera anymore.

What probably matters more is how you can sell the final products you produce. - My wife recently had a client land up spending 5 times what he originally planned to, all after looking at the albums and other products she has in her studio. Never once did he ask what camera she uses. Right now, she is much more concerned about submitting her portfolio for full membership of the AIPP rather than buying a new camera, because being able to display the AIPP logo on her promotional material is going to get her more clients than a new camera ever will.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 30, 2012)

That cartoon is so funny. I am a plastic surgeon, and it is like dealing with some of my patients!

Glad to share to the misery.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, I'm going to apologize for the threadjack, but I'll use the fact that I really don't see this thread as going anywhere useful as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hage said:
> 
> 
> > Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.
> ...



When you're crunching through huge jobs processing a few hundred image files the last thing you need is unnecessarily massive files, they're slow to open, slower to render global changes in post-pro and chew up admittedly cheap storage at an alarming rate. 

I notice the difference in PP workflow speed with 16 mp 1D4 files compared to 21mp 1Ds3 or 5D3 files. 16mp is hugely adequate for everything I shoot for demanding clients. Canon's getting my money for a 1DX too.

Remember being totally gobsmacked by output from the original 12mp 1Ds & 5D classic? Believe me, it's still good. 22 mp is way more than enough for over 99% of pictures taken on the planet every day. 

Some technical shooters, some high end art shooters, some architectural shooters & others do genuinely need 36+ mp, and many of these already have MF. For them a D800 will be a tempting, relevant bit of kit. 

Paul Wright


----------



## roumin (Mar 30, 2012)

I just upgraded to the new 5D3 from a 7D and love it. I had 50D, 60D, 7D and loved all of them as they took phenomenal quality photos. I seriously would have been turned off if the 5D3 had a higher MP. Its already a data nightmare to deal with 22MP RAWs - little alone 36MP. I still would have bought the 5D3 if it had just 18 MP. Just look at the success of Nikon 3Ds with 12MP. If you want a wall sized prints, buy a medium format and SHUT IT!

You never hear high-end professionals whine about who has better camera. its just a tool dude. i am certain if you trade cameras with Joe McNally, he would still kick your butt.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 30, 2012)

Pass the P[opcorn!


----------



## gmrza (Mar 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Pass the P[opcorn!



Amen to that!


----------



## kdsand (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable. :-\
[/quote]

True, but like I said, the majority of them are awesome. Anyway, it beats working for a corporate slave-driver. 
[/quote]

So so true.
Freedom from corporate = priceless.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

I have the interesting situation where I shoot with both the 1D4 and the 1Ds3 so I am getting images at 16mp and 21mp

I have to adopt different techniques for each as my target media size is A3.

With the 1D4 I have to get it as near full frame as possible so I only crop to the 1:1.414 ratio, whereas with the 1Ds3 I have some more lattitude to throw some pixels away.

I wonder if given 36mp I would become sloppier with the composition and framing?

PS Both are great cameras and am still learning to get more from each, although I have greatest affection for the 1Ds3 whereas the 1D4 is clinically the best tool.


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 30, 2012)

kdsand said:


> I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable. :-\



True, but like I said, the majority of them are awesome. Anyway, it beats working for a corporate slave-driver. 
[/quote]

So so true.
Freedom from corporate = priceless.

[/quote]

Almost worth paying the extra 7-15% self employment income tax!


----------



## MazV-L (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now. My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes. Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography. Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me. Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years. 2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level. I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3.
> 
> After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700. I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect. Except for resolution (and video). The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment. Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700.
> 
> ...


I saw the 5Dmark iii for real and the real raw files in front of me on the computer screen for the first time today and I was extremely impressed (it belonged to a veteran pro friend and he was using it for product photography) any doubts I had about purchasing it myself vanished when I saw how tack sharp those unprocessed raw files were.
I recommend you stop passing judgement on the camera based purely on what you've read/seen on the internet, instead ask one of your local pros if they mind showing you firsthand what the camera can do!


----------



## rlarsen (Mar 30, 2012)

I just finished visiting the very popular Sports Shooter website, and you might be interested to read all the posts from pros complaining and warning about the new Nikon D4 and D800.


----------



## eeek (Mar 30, 2012)

I remember years ago when the megapixel craze really started. I had an XTi and a photographer friend asked me to explain to him why megapixels were important. They were tons of cameras that had more megapixels and his question was 'why is your camera that has less megapixels better than this point and shoot that has more?' He told me I would be asked that a lot. And he's right, over the years, I was. And every time it was by some one who really didn't understand what it meant. More has never meant better in the photography industry. But people still chase that dragon like it's the only thing that matters. I cannot wrap it around my head why you (and many others) are jumping up and down over this. After years of following the 5D2, I can honestly say that the majority of people never asked for more megapixels. They asked for better resolution, better autofocus and better low light performance. What they asked for is what Canon delivered.


----------



## suburbia (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage said:


> I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer



I stopped reading


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

suburbia said:


> Hage said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer
> ...



So what stopped you reading - the fact that he is Belgian or that he is an amateur photographer?


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 30, 2012)

With the 5D3, Canon did exactly what I hoped they would do this time. However, for those of you who want that high res sensor, I hope they make one of those too.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> suburbia said:
> 
> 
> > Hage said:
> ...



Agreed - very bad form. :-[


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 30, 2012)

suburbia said:


> Hage said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer
> ...



Where are you from? And let's have a look at your portfolio. Got a link?


----------



## ippikiokami (Mar 30, 2012)

Hage

Use the camera before you say all of this

Thanks


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 30, 2012)

The real reason why Nikon put a 36 megapickle sensor in the D800, is because Canon are selling so many more cameras than Nikon, and Nikon was depserate to have some extraordinary headline in order to try and get sales, even if that meant that the camera is lacking in the features that TURE PHOTOGRAPHERS really want and need.
No decent photographer needs even 22mp, but 36 is just asking for trouble as high ISO shooting is affected, and the FPS of the D800 is sorely lacking.
The 5D3 is a very well rounded camera and very useful for anyone from pros down.
It's a camera you do almost anything with from landscapes, to action - even in the dark, to portraits and the most demanding of all, weddings.

We'll see what sells more in a few months from now, the Nikon D800 or the 5D3.
I bet the 5D3 outsells it by a large margin just as every Canon outsells the equivalent Nikon model now.

From many of the photos I've seen, especially ones taken using high ISO settings, I think the Canon is superior.

And no, I Don't have a 5D3, or even have one on order.

Anyway, by the time you have to buy the Nikon software, which you get for free with the Canon, there isn't much of a price difference.


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 30, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> No decent photographer needs even 22mp, but 36 is just asking for trouble as high ISO shooting is affected, and the FPS of the D800 is sorely lacking.



There are photographers that use 180MP digital backs, and the are pretty 'true'.
Some need high MP, some do not, it all depends on what they are doing. Believe it or not there is more then one type of photographer out there.


----------



## weber (Mar 30, 2012)

Let me ask you some questions. How many people will actually buy a $3499.99 body only camera? And how many of those will actually understand MP does not mean everything. It is how those pixels perform, instead of how many you have packed inside.

Unfortunately, I don't think you should buy 5D3, because you don't even understand the basics. Even your 40D seems too much for you. Just buy Sony Cybershot WX7, 16MP! 6 Million more pixels than your 40D for a lot cheaper. Happy?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

weber said:


> Let me ask you some questions. How many people will actually buy a $3499.99 body only camera? And how many of those will actually understand MP does not mean everything. It is how those pixels perform, instead of how many you have packed inside.



Me - I have done it twice



weber said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think you should buy 5D3, because you don't even understand the basics. Even your 40D seems too much for you. Just buy Sony Cybershot WX7, 16MP! 6 Million more pixels than your 40D for a lot cheaper. Happy?



I find that rather rude talking down to someone like that


----------

