StarNut wrote:
It's amazing the tired nonsense that gets spouted around here repeatedly.
Year after year, those who fancy themselves particularly professional (or something) feel obligated to slam the 24-105, a fine multi-use lens and a perfect complement to a full frame camera as a walking-around lens. You may not like it, for whatever reason (and your reason may even be legitimate!), but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's an excellent choice on a ff body for others.
And this nonsense that gets trotted out that the 5d3 "shouldn't cost $500 more than the D800." It sold out practically everywhere in this country at that price, and is still hard to get; you think Canon should have foregone that $500 per body for thousands of bodies, out of the the goodness of their heart (and because you think you know more about how good should be priced than they do)? ROFLMAO....Show more →
Who really slammed the 24-105? I clarified my statement above and skibum described in detail his problems with the copies he had and they sound legitimate. I'm not sure who your comment was directed at but you come on and insult others with your derogatory tone and then somehow think your opinion is more valid because you aren't a fancy professional?
And then you call someone's opinion nonsense because it differs from yours. You need to take a breathe and settle down. There is a tonne of 5D3 stock now sitting in stores in Canada ready to be sold. The initial rush was great and it was a little hard to get in the first 2 weeks but there are hundreds of posts on this and other photography boards of people not upgrading because of the extra $500. I think Canon needs to lower the price fairly soon unless Nikon ends up raising theirs as they have in Europe already.
arbitrage wrote:
Who really slammed the 24-105? I clarified my statement above and skibum described in detail his problems with the copies he had and they sound legitimate. I'm not sure who your comment was directed at but you come on and insult others with your derogatory tone and then somehow think your opinion is more valid because you aren't a fancy professional?
Haha. You slammed the 24-105, then back-pedaled. Others slam it regularly, including another just above. I have no problem with opinions; I have a lot of problem with nonsense being spouted as gospel. If you don't like the lens, say "I don't like the lens." When someone says " the stinking 24-105" or "I agree the 24-105 kit is pointless for this highend type camera," that's not the same thing at all; that's calling the lens a bad lens, which it most certainly is not.
And then you call someone's opinion nonsense because it differs from yours. You need to take a breathe and settle down. There is a tonne of 5D3 stock now sitting in stores in Canada ready to be sold. The initial rush was great and it was a little hard to get in the first 2 weeks but there are hundreds of posts on this and other photography boards of people not upgrading because of the extra $500. I think Canon needs to lower the price fairly soon unless Nikon ends up raising theirs as they have in Europe already.
I rarely call someone's OPINION nonsense; I frequently call someone's nonsensical gospel (they should charge $500 less; the 24-105 stinks; etc., etc., etc.) nonsense. Because such drivel masquerading as gospel is nonsense, and someone who doesn't know better might just believe it.
Again, I have no problem with "I won't pay more than $3000 for the camera." Or "It's not worth $3500 to me." But a blanket statement that "it should be priced the same as the D800" is nonsense, as witness the thousands they've sold at this price (and will continue to sell at this price for some time).
I don't see the difference in these statements or quotes. They all mean the same thing to me - and that is that the 5D III is overpriced at $3,500 relative the the competition.
StarNut wrote:
Again, I have no problem with "I won't pay more than $3000 for the camera." Or "It's not worth $3500 to me." But a blanket statement that "it should be priced the same as the D800" is nonsense, as witness the thousands they've sold at this price (and will continue to sell at this price for some time).
bobbytan wrote:
I don't see the difference in these statements or quotes. They all mean the same thing to me - and that is that the 5D III is overpriced at $3,500 relative the the competition.
On the theory that you're not just being a troll, and actually don't see the difference, I'll explain.
As pointed out many times, in this and other threads, the market determines the price for non-essential goods. The market has emphatically endorsed Canon's price for this widget; by definition, it's not "overpriced," or it wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.
Just because it's not worth the selling price to you, or to any number of other people, has no bearing on whether it's "overpriced." As long as it's selling in sufficient quantity to give the manufacturer the return it seeks on its investment, it's priced correctly for the market, not, by definition, "overpriced.".
One can opine that it's "overpriced," just as one can opine that the world is flat. Both are equally valid opinions.
StarNut wrote:
On the theory that you're not just being a troll, and actually don't see the difference, I'll explain.
As pointed out many times, in this and other threads, the market determines the price for non-essential goods. The market has emphatically endorsed Canon's price for this widget; by definition, it's not "overpriced," or it wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.
Just because it's not worth the selling price to you, or to any number of other people, has no bearing on whether it's "overpriced." As long as it's selling in sufficient quantity to give the manufacturer the return it seeks on its investment, it's priced correctly for the market, not, by definition, "overpriced.".
One can opine that it's "overpriced," just as one can opine that the world is flat. Both are equally valid opinions. ...Show more →
At the least one can say it's a bit overpriced in terms of consumer value compared to the competition and as we are consumers that is what matters to us. Canon marketing is hardly sitting around all day trying to find ways to put $ in our pockets so why do we need to view everything from the perspective best for them and not for us?
(also reports seem to be that the D800 is flying off the shelf faster, maybe Canon wins by grabbing the extra $500 while they can, but does it is drive any to Nikon in the meantime, do people who paid $3500 get mad if it very soon dropped to $3000? maybe, maybe not)
(it doesn't help when they do silly little things like cripple autoiso or reserve video crop mode for the 1D Cinema series "Another feature is that it has a Super 35mm crop mode (like the D800 with DX crop mode) for compatibility with cinema lenses." There is no reason at all the 5D3 couldn't have had a 1.6x crop video mode using 2x2 sampling, at the cost of over a stop of noise it would offer more reach and probably be noticeably more detailed. It actually needs it MORE than the 4k 1D Cinema since the 1D Cinema has more video resolution to begin with and would have the extra reach built in as is to begin with and extra detail too.)
I hear what you are saying. All I am saying is that there is no difference between one person saying "It's not worth $3,500 to me" vs another person saying "It should be priced the same as the D800". It's merely different people expressing a personal opinion in their own different ways ... and they all mean to say the same thing ... that in their personal opinion, the 5D III is priced a little too high relative to the D800 - regardless of how well either camera does in the market.
StarNut wrote:
On the theory that you're not just being a troll, and actually don't see the difference, I'll explain.
As pointed out many times, in this and other threads, the market determines the price for non-essential goods. The market has emphatically endorsed Canon's price for this widget; by definition, it's not "overpriced," or it wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.
Just because it's not worth the selling price to you, or to any number of other people, has no bearing on whether it's "overpriced." As long as it's selling in sufficient quantity to give the manufacturer the return it seeks on its investment, it's priced correctly for the market, not, by definition, "overpriced.".
One can opine that it's "overpriced," just as one can opine that the world is flat. Both are equally valid opinions. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
I hear what you are saying. All I am saying is that there is no difference between one person saying "It's not worth $3,500 to me" vs another person saying "It should be priced the same as the D800". It's merely different people expressing a personal opinion in their own different ways ... and they all mean to say the same thing ... that in their personal opinion, the 5D III is priced a little too high relative to the D800 - regardless of how well either camera does in the market.
Many people using such terms interchangeably doesn't make it correct. Many people use "it's" wrong, and a myriad of other examples, and that doesn't make such incorrect usage correct.
The statement "It should be priced the same as the D800" is an assertion of fact, stating that there is some sort of moral imperative that the two should be priced the same. The statement "It's not worth any more to me than a D800" expresses that person's opinion of the price. Those are different assertions. The former is, objectively, wrong, since the 5D3 is selling very well at a higher price than the D800 (and, by the way, the assertion that the D800 is selling very well is totally irrelevant to whether or not Canon priced the 5D3 correctly as a business matter). The latter is a perfectly good opinion. Those are different.
StarNut wrote:
Haha. You slammed the 24-105, then back-pedaled.
As you quoted, I said that "I agree the 24-105 kit is pointless for this highend type of camera". THE KIT not the KIT LENS but THE KIT . I said nothing about the lens at all and obviously even though you want to come on here and discuss logic and grammar with everyone you could first take the time to slow down and read what I wrote before spouting out childish comments like "Haha". Makes you sound like a small child.
And none of your reasoning makes any logical sense. When someone types something on a forum and says as you quoted "they should charge $500 less" that is their opinion. Who would assume it is any type of fact. That just doesn't make any sense at all. Everything we type on here is our opinion. If anyone reads anything on the internet that isn't a Cochran reviewed study, it all has to be taken as opinion.
In the future why not just state your opposing opinion and debate it as needed. I don't see the need to insult other posters because you don't agree with their statements.
Interesting, earlier today when you put it into your cart there was a message saying that they expected to receive a shipment on Monday, but that's gone now.
Apr 12, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Canon is looking at a marketing disaster here. Charging $500 more for a camera that has 10Mpix fewer than the comparable Nikon is a non-starter.
If you didn't have a bunch of Canon glass to use, why would you buy the 5D3? Sure, gear heads might like some features on the Canon over the Nikon, but most people won't see that.
This camera will be at $2,999 soon. For the sake of Canon, I hope it is
CMOS wrote:
Canon is looking at a marketing disaster here. Charging $500 more for a camera that has 10Mpix fewer than the comparable Nikon is a non-starter.
If you didn't have a bunch of Canon glass to use, why would you buy the 5D3? Sure, gear heads might like some features on the Canon over the Nikon, but most people won't see that.
This camera will be at $2,999 soon. For the sake of Canon, I hope it is
I would have loved for this camera to have been $500-800 less than the asking price but to compare it to the Nikon D800 based on it having 10MP more is naive.
Why would you want the Canon? Shoot with one and it will answer your question. The new AF system is the best they have ever offered and 22MP is more than enough for just about any kind of shooting except the hardcore Landscape shooters and the D800 will fit their need fine.
High ISO performance is markedly better than the D800 so why would you want the D800 except for the 10MP that most just don't need. The features you think only gearheads might like are actual a necessity for most photographers.
The difference in price has nothing to do with what each camera has to offer it's user. Personally I don't think either one of them should be more than $2500 but you have to choose which one meets your needs and pay the price for admission or don't. I certainly wouldn't change just because one had 10MP more and was $500 cheaper.
I even considered the D800 but once the 5D MK3 became available, and I could use one and compare it, I found the Canon to meet my needs better than the D800. Based on that comparison and my needs the $500 difference was worth it since that is what I had to pay to play.
CMOS wrote:
Canon is looking at a marketing disaster here. Charging $500 more for a camera that has 10Mpix fewer than the comparable Nikon is a non-starter.
I couldn't agree more! Why, with retailers unable to keep them on their shelves, folks in Japan must be working overtime trying to decide what they did wrong.
It's like Yogi's restaurant--Nobody goes there any more, because it's too crowded.
