Once the 5DIII prices dip below the $3k mark, then I will seriously think about selling my 5DII to buy the Mark III. But with the prices where they are at now, I really can't justify shelling out roughly $1,700 (difference when I sell my 5DII).

-Nick

Ralph Conway wrote:
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".


If you think the camera has a good value for you and you are willing to spend it, this is okay! It is just that I am amazed by all kind of artificial excuses from other members here to justify the price tag of this camera. Why not just saying, yes, the camera was/is overpriced in comparison to the current competition? As you said, some might not care and buy it anyway, others will wait for the price to drop and others will just not buy the camera for other reasons which are already efficiently discussed. And I also agree what you mentioned above about the 6D - if you like its options for the price given, why not?

I personally decided several months ago to get another new 5D II for $1700, converted the camera for IR usage, and just upgraded my older version of the 24 mm T/S lens (sold my old version) to the new version with a used mint copy for $1730. All together a bit more than paying for the 5D III, but I make a lot more use out of those options .

thw2 wrote:
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.


Fourthly, and I must say most importantly...who cares about their stock prices. I don't own any of their stock and couldn't give a damn how much it has dropped or risen. I just purchase camera equipment to use for enjoyment and sell some of my photos. If either corporations make bad stratigic decisions that affect their share prices...shame on them, but I still don't give a hoot.

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.

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.

Two points from my side, mate:-)

1. I have 5D MKIII, but I will not say it is worth every penny. It is what it is and it does what it does. It is the best small side FF body of Canon and it means that there is no other choice. Canon wants you to pay 3500 and unless you are changing a brand, you have no choice. But you will not see me jumping for joy that Canon just squeezed $3500 off me. Same with 70-200 II which I have as well. It was super expensive....but I have no other choice. It is what it is. And the new 24-70 is almost $900 more expensive than the old one and still people go mad saying that they are super happy that Canon just squeezed them.

2. Different values and budgets...agree. The only problem is....majority of people here use credit to get the $3500 camera and then come back full of joy that Canon just squeezed them:-)

retrofocus wrote:

If you think the camera has a good value for you and you are willing to spend it, this is okay! It is just that I am amazed by all kind of artificial excuses from other members here to justify the price tag of this camera. Why not just saying, yes, the camera was/is overpriced in comparison to the current competition? ....

So lets say the camera was priced at $2700, then would you say that the camera is priced right? How would we establish that this is the "right" price? I could say that if it costs over $2000 then it is overpriced. How are you establishing what is too high and what is too low? If you are looking at D800 as a reference then who says that D800 is priced right? I can say that D800 should not cost more than $2000 either and it is overpriced as well. And D800 is not a canon camera anyway so if you are a canon user trying to buy a canon DSLR than it hardly matters what Nikon D800 costs. And if you are a new user trying to decide on which system to get than I hope your choice of a system depends on factors other than the $500 difference in price of the bodies.

You did not get me. I have 5D MKIII and can afford it. I also have a bunch of L's and Zeiss lenses. But you will not see me overjoyed that I had to pay that much even though I can afford it. At this stage there is no other option available for me, so I accept it. But...worth every penny? I know what this camera can do and I know what I can do with it, but "worth every penny squeezed off me" - I do not think in these categories.

Ralph Conway wrote:
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".

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). 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.

I think you're approaching it a bit too black-or-white. It seems that you're saying a feature is either crucial to business and therefore an absolute need, or isn't crucial to business and therefore unjustifiable. To me there's an in-between state: a feature that would be very helpful to have and allows one to produce better results, but the lack of which isn't necessarily crippling. For me good AF is that kind of feature. To say that if "you need the AF in which case you already had a 1 series" is an extreme position. I'm also still rolling with a 5D. I don't need any features of the 1 series that are better than the 5D except for AF and definitely don't want to pay for said unnecessary features. That's why I skipped the 5DII and will probably end up with a 5DIII once the price settles under $3K where I think it belongs. Is the lack of 1-series AF stopping me from creating with the 5D? No. I'm not a sports/action shooter for whom such a feature is make or break. But great AF will certainly allow me a higher keeper rate, and since a lot of my work is candid shooting I'll end up throwing away a lot fewer pictures due to missed AF than I am now with the 5D. I can easily justify such an expense, just not at the $3500 mark they were asking for at launch.

I think that's the point though. There is a justifiable business expense and there is a business expense which will make you as a business owner happier. The first is always justified and even a necessity. The later is very much dependant on the value and that is the point you have made. Yes it will make your life much easier, streamline your workflow, etc but at that point the price becomes far more relevant. What are you willing to spend for that extra convenience? How much is it worth it to you because otherwise the money would be staying in your pocket and being spent on other things. At that point it becomes very personal I suppose.

Light_pilgrim wrote:
You did not get me. I have 5D MKIII and can afford it. I also have a bunch of L's and Zeiss lenses. But you will not see me overjoyed that I had to pay that much even though I can afford it. At this stage there is no other option available for me, so I accept it. But...worth every penny? I know what this camera can do and I know what I can do with it, but "worth every penny squeezed off me" - I do not think in these categories.

Ralph Conway wrote:
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".



As far I see it - even if you doen´t like the price - your purchase justified what Canon asks for the 5D III, Light_pilgrim.

Beni wrote:
I think that's the point though. There is a justifiable business expense and there is a business expense which will make you as a business owner happier. The first is always justified and even a necessity. The later is very much dependant on the value and that is the point you have made. Yes it will make your life much easier, streamline your workflow, etc but at that point the price becomes far more relevant. What are you willing to spend for that extra convenience? How much is it worth it to you because otherwise the money would be staying in your pocket and being spent on other things. At that point it becomes very personal I suppose.

Agreed. That personal in-between area is why we have a 4-pages-and-counting thread in which we'll never reach a consensus answer It is helpful to talk through the principles though, especially for people on the fence trying to make a decision.

"but I have no other choice" -- you always have a choice. Even if you want to stick to Canon, and must have a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, there are several choices.

And the 5d3 is a luxury. Anything above a rebel or a 60D is the very high high end of the camera market. Sure it's a nice luxury to have, regardless of what kind of photographer you are (hobbyist or pro). But you always have choices.

It's like the joke about the photographer and the bear. You always have a choice.

For me, the performance should be there before we're discussing the cost. Imo, $3500 cam can do thing better than these samples: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1155718/0#11029322

True value?

I already got pictures I will value way more than the money I spent on the camera

It is a luxury having them as much as I enjoy having a camera that good.

I paid much?Yes, but do I enjoy it? Hell yes.

Aaron Mark III

Because the value of an item always depends on the person who uses, "needs" or wants it it will always be different. There is no "true" value.

Ralph Conway wrote:
Because the value of an item always depends on the person who uses, "needs" or wants it it will always be different. There is no "true" value.
Trying to explain value in that way is pure folly since two people will rarely agree. Value has to be determined by the market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28economics%29

The other problem with assigning a different value to the camera (even if you can make money with it) is that it is in no way unique. If your camera breaks, is stolen, lost, or whatever, you can just purchase a new one at the current price. The value is the replacement cost as determined by the market.

If you are able to make money with your camera, or derive pleasure from your camera, that makes 'you' the unique part of the equation. Not your camera.

curious80 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:

If you think the camera has a good value for you and you are willing to spend it, this is okay! It is just that I am amazed by all kind of artificial excuses from other members here to justify the price tag of this camera. Why not just saying, yes, the camera was/is overpriced in comparison to the current competition? ....

So lets say the camera was priced at $2700, then would you say that the camera is priced right? How would we establish that this is the "right" price? I could say that if it costs over $2000 then it is overpriced. How are you establishing what is too high and what is too low? If you are looking at D800 as a reference then who says that D800 is priced right? I can say that D800 should not cost more than $2000 either and it is overpriced as well. And D800 is not a canon camera anyway so if you are a canon user trying to buy a canon DSLR than it hardly matters what Nikon D800 costs. And if you are a new user trying to decide on which system to get than I hope your choice of a system depends on factors other than the $500 difference in price of the bodies.

As others stated above, value is a subjective matter. But to give you an answer, I first look at the technical specs of a camera before considering a new purchase. My - admittedly - subjective interest is a development in the heart of the camera which is the sensor and the processor. The rest is of less importance for my style of photography. Looking at this, the D800 is the best technology sensor-wise on the market currently for the given price. This is it. I am not saying its price is high or low, but IMO it is the best in technology-price ratio out there. Honestly, I wouldn't be so concerned about the $500 higher in price (even I wouldn't be happy for sure!) if at least both cameras (5D III and D800) had the same excellent new sensor built in. Then we would have a totally different game plan.
But as I said in other threads earlier, I believe that the group of wedding/event photographers and sports shooters justify the initial cost of the 5D III for its very good AF system. Here actually the purchase can make sense. Since I neither do wedding nor sports photography, my calculations are different and an upgrade for me actually just not worth it for the bucks paid.