thw2 wrote:
Great responses so far.

Time will tell if the strategy that Nikon makes now is worth the while. Will they REALLY be able to capture a huge market share from Canon or they are merely suffering the pains of low profits now without really winning any new market shares? I think the sales in DSLR lenses may give us some hints. So far, Canon is still doing far better than Nikon in the lens sales department...

I noticed that Amazon lists the Rebel T3i kit as the number one selling DSLR for them. The less expensive D5100 kit is number 2. Obviously for most people value outweighs the latest tech and MP. The D800 and 5D3 are numbers 15 and 16 and appeal to a relatively small segment of the DSLR market. Surprisingly the old tech 7D squeaked into the top 10.

Gochugogi wrote:

I noticed that Amazon lists the Rebel T3i kit as the number one selling DSLR for them. The less expensive D5100 kit is number 2. Obviously for most people value outweighs the latest tech and MP. The D800 and 5D3 are numbers 15 and 16 and appeal to a relatively small segment of the DSLR market. Surprisingly the old tech 7D squeaked into the top 10.

7D is not really old tech, just a slightly outdated sensor. 5D III has implemented most of if not all of the 7D features, which is another reason it's so nice to use. 7D has great ergonomics.

jorkata wrote:
Canon's stock is down 30% for the year, though, so it investors don't seem confident that Canon is doing things right either.

Firstly, the stock prices for Nikon, Canon and Sony have fallen by at least 25% for the year. Canon is not the only victim.

Secondly, all these companies sell MANY other products apart from digital cameras, so the prices of a few cameras will not have significant impact on the overall stock prices.

Thirdly, the current tiff between China and Japan is severely affecting Japan's overall economy. Again, Canon is not the only victim.

5d3 was the best value if 5d2, d800 and d600 did not exists. I liked 5d3 but wanted better sensor. $3500 is fair if 24/36mp exmor sensor build-in

If you're a working pro, paying more for new technology makes sense because that new tool makes more money for you.

Do you really think a "working pro" is going to make more money just because he or she trades up to a 5DMkIII from a 5dMkII? Do you really think the images will be so different between those two cameras that a pro photographer will automatically increase their ability to sell their work? If so, please give me some examples where a client exclaimed, "Wow, I will now pay you double for that image because you acquired it with the latest DSLR!".

The whole idea is ridiculous...

John

BluesWest wrote:
If you're a working pro, paying more for new technology makes sense because that new tool makes more money for you.

Do you really think a "working pro" is going to make more money just because he or she trades up to a 5DMkIII from a 5dMkII? Do you really think the images will be so different between those two cameras that a pro photographer will automatically increase their ability to sell their work? If so, please give me some examples where a client exclaimed, "Wow, I will now pay you double for that image because you acquired it with the latest DSLR!".

The whole idea is ridiculous...

John

No, John you are right. My customers will not see any differences. But I will FEEL it.
I get booked for events often because I use no flash but shoot AL at ISO 3.200 when I would prefere 6.400. The less banding, higher ISO usability and better working AF System would give me a higher keepers rate and much more freedom. And in addition to really great Jpegs OOC the new 5D III like bodies would save me some stress in shooting and a lot of time in PP to make my customers happy. A 10 hours wedding often results in 1500-2000 shots and easyly in 2-3 days of post production. Saving 25% of time (what looks realistic to me) is a great advantage and pays the additional price for the camera in 3-4 jobs. I have a customer booking me regulary asking for JPEGs only but as fast as possible for sudden publications. I would not mind to hand him out OOC JPEGS done with 5D III. I would not do with my 5D II. For a 1 hour shoot that means driving home selecting 10 shots and process them. I would be very happy to save those additional 2-3 hours earning the same money. In the last seven month it happened two times I had to reject an assignment because I already had a booking the same day and would not have been able to deliver both in time based on post production only. I lost (possible) $ 1100 for 4 shooting hours.

I was not able to afford the 5D III and sad about it. Now I know better. It looks like 6Ds OOC JPEGs are comparable or even slighty better than 5D IIIs and this new (AL) camera fullfills my needs even more at a 1000 € saving.
So beeing forced to wait is not always bad.

BluesWest wrote:
If you're a working pro, paying more for new technology makes sense because that new tool makes more money for you.

Do you really think a "working pro" is going to make more money just because he or she trades up to a 5DMkIII from a 5dMkII? Do you really think the images will be so different between those two cameras that a pro photographer will automatically increase their ability to sell their work? If so, please give me some examples where a client exclaimed, "Wow, I will now pay you double for that image because you acquired it with the latest DSLR!".

The whole idea is ridiculous...

John

I'd agree with that, as a working pro I'm still using a pair of 5Dc's because I cannot justify upgrading as a business expense. Those old and battered cameras are still making my wage. The 5D3 would not make me a penny more for what they are used for, it would be a personal upgrade only in that it would be nicer and easier to use and for the price, the business cannot and should not afford that kind of luxury upgrade. To be honest, if I needed the AF of the 5D3 then the business would not have been shooting with a 5 series body in any case. There is little, very little in a 5D3 which would provide a business with a justifiable cause of upgrade (if they needed the features already then they would have had a 1 series and then it's not an upgrade, it's a sidegrade at most) unless they are looking to branch out into new fields such as video.

BluesWest wrote:
If you're a working pro, paying more for new technology makes sense because that new tool makes more money for you.

Do you really think a "working pro" is going to make more money just because he or she trades up to a 5DMkIII from a 5dMkII? Do you really think the images will be so different between those two cameras that a pro photographer will automatically increase their ability to sell their work? If so, please give me some examples where a client exclaimed, "Wow, I will now pay you double for that image because you acquired it with the latest DSLR!".

The whole idea is ridiculous...

John

Well said, and very true, and basically what I wanted to say earlier. Essentially, I need/want a camera with wider DR and higher MP -- enough to make a significant difference over the 1Ds2 and 5D2, at an affordable price ($2000-3000). The new Digic 5 is great and the new features and menus are better, as is the AF. But none of that will translate to significantly sharper, finer detailed, bolder, or softer image for me. People with other subjects might find the new features a huge improvement for their work. I'm not bad-mouthing the camera, but it needs to get down to a lower price point, otherwise I'll consider a used 1Ds3 as step up from the 1Ds2.

Beni -- I don't know, at least for me, your decision doesn't work. I see a huge difference between the 5D2 and the original 5D, and the 5D3 simply expands the usefulness. Really, you should run one of these cameras through its paces. They are pretty astounding IQ-wise compared to the original. My 5Dc went from back-up to my 1Ds2 to out of the picture when the used 5D2 arrived. Of course you know your needs better than anyone, but I'm just saying that these models have a lot more going for them than the video feature -- both are near double the resolution of the 5Dc. Anyway, enjoy! That's what it's about, taking a satisfying picture.

But if you don't need double the resolution? (which would make the 5D2 a proper business decision not the 5D3 at double the price almost). I've had a long play with the 5D3, incredible camera. I read through the manual and wow but they packed it full of features. Point stands though, as a business decision, unless you need the AF in which case you already had a 1 series, the 5D3 needs significant justification, it's not a 'no brainer' at that price. Honestly, the 5DII especially with the magic lantern software is enough to make any business seriously question the need to upgrade if the 5DII was enough for the business in the past. My business cannot justify the 5DII nevermind the 5DIII, it just doesn't need LV, video, superior AF, sensor cleaning, etc enough to justify the investment as a business expense, i.e. features which will pay for themselves.

One thing I will say would justify it, especially for a business. Dual cards. I'd forgotten about that. Doesn't make a difference if a 5D2 was good enough feature wise, for a business dual cards is big. Very very big. Big enough that I almost bought a 5D3, still want to as soon as they fix the 'Eye of Sauron' flashing red lenses.

Beni -- Glad you had a good look at it. You know you needs better than anyone. I agree with what you say, and the dual cards is good business insurance! But otherwise, the 5D2 seems the better bet between the newer models -- for me, at least at this moment.

Beni wrote:
But if you don't need double the resolution? (which would make the 5D2 a proper business decision not the 5D3 at double the price almost).

Beni, If you don't mind me asking...I was reading another thread that a gentleman from the UK mentioned that the Canon cost more over there than here in the US. I believe I paid something like $2600 USD for my 5D MkII and $3450. for the 5D MkIII. Is the 5D MkIII really close to double the cost over there? If so, that really stinks and I can understand your situation. Truth is I'm not too sure I would have paid a lot more for the 5D MkIII without seriously considering the 1D X instead. My situation is however completely different as it's a retirement hobby for me and most likely the last I purchase. I just didn't realize that you folks in the UK are paying much higher costs!

dmahar wrote:
I have no doubt that I have gotten shots with the 5D iii that I would not have gotten at such high quality with with either my old 5D ii or my 7D.

Would love to see these jewels:-)

I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.

Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.

+1

jstntym wrote:
Beni wrote:
But if you don't need double the resolution? (which would make the 5D2 a proper business decision not the 5D3 at double the price almost).

Beni, If you don't mind me asking...I was reading another thread that a gentleman from the UK mentioned that the Canon cost more over there than here in the US. I believe I paid something like $2600 USD for my 5D MkII and $3450. for the 5D MkIII. Is the 5D MkIII really close to double the cost over there? If so, that really stinks and I can understand your situation. Truth is I'm not too sure I would have paid a lot more for the 5D MkIII without seriously considering the 1D X instead. My situation is however completely different as it's a retirement hobby for me and most likely the last I purchase. I just didn't realize that you folks in the UK are paying much higher costs!


Canon UK are selling refurb 5DII's with a full year canon warranty for £1249 on ebay at the moment and have been offloading them at that price for a month already. That's under half the 5D3 price. The non refurb price is £1000 less which is still extremely significant. I've bought a bunch of the canon refurbs in the past, they're good stuff and in the UK we get a full year manufacturer warranty on refurbs....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-21-1-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Only-Refurbished-/290780013639?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item43b3d6e447

Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.

Not everybody has the same budget constrains or values. I see lots of people wearing $350 True Region jeans and driving BMWs when Levi and a Civic are readily available or they could have just kept using the same old. On the other hand, if those able to afford the fancy-arse products were tightwads the economy would be even slower. It's good that those whom can afford it, circulate their cash.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Gochugogi wrote:

I noticed that Amazon lists the Rebel T3i kit as the number one selling DSLR for them. The less expensive D5100 kit is number 2. Obviously for most people value outweighs the latest tech and MP. The D800 and 5D3 are numbers 15 and 16 and appeal to a relatively small segment of the DSLR market. Surprisingly the old tech 7D squeaked into the top 10.

7D is not really old tech, just a slightly outdated sensor. 5D III has implemented most of if not all of the 7D features, which is another reason it's so nice to use. 7D has great ergonomics.


Yeah, I know you're right but many buyers are into the "newer the better" thing.

Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.
Nothing wrong with free market capitalism.

As long as it doesn't get totally exploitative, ie. if Canon designed their cameras with a feature that after three years of use would electronically, irrevocably destroy the camera (overvoltage the sensor and other electronics, blow out the shutter mechanism, etc.), or even just go into a mode where you need to purchase a code from Canon for $1000.00 to 'unlock' your camera for another three years of use; as long as they don't do something like that, most people will support their right to set the pricing on their product however they see fit. Your choice as a consumer is to buy it, buy something else, or don't buy anything.

Gochugogi wrote:
Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.

It's good that those whom can afford it, circulate their cash.

Unfortunately in most instances like this the cash goes to multi national companies and stock holders...usually abroad somewhere...it is the 'poorer' people and how they spend their money that tends to keep cash circulating in the local economy.


That aside, I would suggest the antics of companies like Canon divide serious photographers into three groups:


The pro who feels he must have the new item as it has a commercial value that exceeds the purchase price

The enthusiast with a high disposable income who doesn't care about price

The enthusiast that knows the real price will happen a few months after release and prefers not to pay through the nose...and until then current gear is fine.


My feeling is that the antics of companies like Canon are starting to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many of its long term customers....and long term this has to be detrimental to the company.

retrofocus wrote:
Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am not surprised by Canon trying to squeeze as much as possible from people. But I am shocked to see people justifying it.

+1

One can not eat a Canon body. Nobody needs to buy one. Or a new one. If you are shocked people justify to pay an asked price they can afford for a product they want to own, please look into the mirror.
You want to tell me you are not doing the same if you can? What computer do you use? How old is it? How expensive has it been? What car do you drive? There was no cheaper one around?
You watch TV and own a Hifi system? You use a smartphone? Or any kind of x-pad? Do you need it? And if, do you always buy the cheapest available item?

It always astonishes me how easy people can value others behavior in different scales when it comes to their own "needs".