StarNut wrote:
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.
Nikon may be thinking, "Dang, we could have charged more!"
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
Seems like it's a bit of a "starter" to me. They've sold a bunch, right?
A bunch of reasons why one would buy the 5D Mark III without having a "bunch of Canon glass":
1. The 5D Mark III is a fine camera
2. Canon's long lenses, in my opinion, have better image quality than Nikon, especially with converters. I say this having shot Canon and Nikon long lenses, with converters, extensively. Quite simply, Canon is better here.
3. Nikon does not have a 24-105 (the 24-120 is not good enough from reports and reviews I've seen)
4. The D800 is not a realistic alternative to those who like shooting fast action with it (e.g. birds and wildlife). I hate crop mode and I don't want the massive files and unforgiving sensor. I may change my mind on this later but that's how I feel right now. The leap from a 12mp D700 to a 36mp D800 is puzzling to me.
So, plenty of good reasons for me to want a 5D Mark III. I own one and am perfectly happy with it. The light leak "issue" has not affected me at all.
ghozer wrote:
4. The D800 is not a realistic alternative to those who like shooting fast action with it (e.g. birds and wildlife). I hate crop mode and I don't want the massive files and unforgiving sensor. I may change my mind on this later but that's how I feel right now. The leap from a 12mp D700 to a 36mp D800 is puzzling to me.
I actually think birds and wildlife is one place where the D800 is certainly better. You get SMALLER files (16MP vs 22MP) with MORE detail (high sensor density) for all of the times when the wildlife is far enough away that it won't go past DX borders (which can rather often) and in those cases the same fps (6). (unless conditions are so bad that you are maybe ISO5000 and up)
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
haha... right you can tell by everyone's reaction towards the camera that they are clearly facing "disaster".
Heck, I bought one and like it so much I'm strongly considering buying a second one.
For those with the 5D3 already, what's the story with these focus points not illuminating?
Is that a real problem or not?
I expect that Canon will fix the 200+800 noise issue and the light leak problem, but what about the point visibility? That probably won't be changed (or fixed, to the extent it is considered a problem).
CMOS wrote:
For those with the 5D3 already, what's the story with these focus points not illuminating?
Is that a real problem or not?
I expect that Canon will fix the 200+800 noise issue and the light leak problem, but what about the point visibility? That probably won't be changed (or fixed, to the extent it is considered a problem).
I currently use the 5dII and 5dIII side by side. The focus point don't illuminate until focus has been achieved. You can still SEE them, but they are dark in the viewfinder. Once you push the button to move the AF point, they light red. So technically you can push the selector button and immediately see where the AF point is at any time.
I'd rate this issue a minor annoyance, but nothing serious. I'm almost certain this function could be changed with a firmware update and I would not be surprised to see Canon address it at some point.
For the D800 to seem unappealing to me, it would have to move up $500 in price.
For the 5D3 to seem appealing to me, it would have to move down $1000 in price.
I think that many of the early adopters of new tech are professionals. They drive others through reviews and feedback to buy the new tech. The others who would buy the new tech after enough prodding via pro reviews are most likely a larger market segment than professionals, and so they probably represent an extremely important part of the market even for $3k cameras.
I think that $3k is closer to the limit and $3.5k is over that limit for many of those less aggressive adopters who need convincing to adopt the latest tech. The same logic as follows the $2999 is more palatable than $3000 concept applies here, and $3499 crosses that border with lots of distance. I'm sure the pro reviews will convince many people to buy the 5d3 at $3.5k, but hopefully enough people will refuse to be swayed into paying the extortionist price (IMO based on what you get for the money) that the 5d3 currently sells at. I know a local photo/video/dj company that is very scrupulous about investing in new equipment and they only do so when they feel they can get fair return for the purchase. I would be extremely surprised if the 5d3 was on their priority list.
I am a few shades below that market share myself in that I will NEVER purchase the 5d3 at a price above about $2700 at the very highest, and most likely not until it drops to $2500 or less. By then two things will have happened: Canon will have mended most or all of the firmware and other updates to the tech, and the price will have gone down to what is both closer to my budget and more reasonable considering the very minimal upgrade (besides autofocus). Or, by that time I will have switched to Nikon. To date, I have never adopted any new technology within the first year of its release, so it is unlikely that will change...and therefore I am not part of the market segment that camera companies really care about. The most expensive single-item purchase I ever made was buying a 5d2 for just under $2100. My comfortable budget has not really increased - in fact, my out-of-pocket budget has been halved - but I have accumulated value with my lenses that would allow me more buying power if I am willing to sacrifice having certain focal lengths. This is where my buying power is indirectly strong enough to afford a $3k camera (D800), but various things have kept me from leaping with both feet.
My new (to me) 1ds II will be here today and it will ultimately help me decide how long I will continue to stick with Canon. Since this technology worked just fine for people years ago (and in fact until just months ago), I would assume that such equipment is perfectly adequate and that a $3500 camera is certainly not going to help me take better photos just because it's new and costs $3500. I really think the 5d3 is being marketed in that way: "This $3500 camera is xxxx much better because of the autofocus improvements, and this justifies the price." I disagree with that statement.
I think that many of the early adopters of new tech are professionals.
Not really. Professionals buy what makes them money, and that's not often tech that is new just to be new. There are some professionals who have been dogged by 5D2 focus limitations...but they're also likely to have already switched to Nikon if it was that much of a money-losing proposition for them. If they haven't been forced to switch by now, then they won't be forced to buy early.
Many of the professionals I see adopting latest tech are those who make good money with photography. Studio, wedding, sports. Many of those who buy new tech quickly probably dislike something about the old tech.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that just about any camera can make roughly the same amount of money for a photographer - at least any camera above a certain minimal level (e.g. 20D, Rebel XTi, etc...) - provided the camera's autofocus, durability and low light features meet minimum requirements for the particular application. Therefore a 1ds III or 1ds II might be just as good as a 1dx for probably 95% of non-sports applications, and a 5d/5d2 might be just as good as a 5d3 for casual shooting of nonmoving subjects and some shooting of moving subjects in average light with lenses that have starting apertures of f/2.8 or smaller. And, a rebel t2i would be just as good as a t3i or 60d or 7d for any application where autofocus or new features are not as important.
I could not charge more for my photography just because I shot with 1dx or D4 cameras.
IMO, any capable camera would make the photographer the same amount of money because so long as the key shots could be obtained.
A key difference, then, is also how much effort, time and luck is involved in obtaining those shots. I would like to reduce time and effort while making luck a much less important factor. To reduce time and effort, I would need something that has first-time accuracy and reliability that I do not need to second-guess all the time.
I am bothered by the possibility that I will never have that kind of accuracy and reliability until I stop using fast prime lenses near wide open. Therefore, my workflow has a critical trade-off: Take longer to get the shots (have to re-take, check focus, etc.) but the shots come out nicer (if background blur is important to the shot), or take less time to get the shots because of less re-do, but the shots have much less background blur...
form wrote:
I think that many of the early adopters of new tech are professionals.
The early adapters, whether professional or not, are those who see value in the new toy (in addition to those who just have to have the latest toy).
I bought a 10D in 2004, and kept it until I replaced it with a 5D2 in 2010. I'm hardly one who has to have the latest toy.
I bought the 5D3 because it pretty well seemed to remedy the shortcomings in the (very fine) 5D2. I had been happy with the 5D2/7D combination, but I never got completely past the significantly lower IQ of the 7D (especially at higher ISO settings). The 5D3, to a large extent, combines the best of the two, without having files so huge that my laptop is totally shut down trying to process the files.
The D800 is of no interest to me, and I don't much care how much it costs. I can't begin to understand those who jump from Nikon to Canon, or the other way around, because of one camera. For all those who whine that the 5d3 "costs too much," it's "extra cost" is a tiny bit compared to swapping equipment. And I'll keep this camera for some years; frankly, a few hundred dollars amortized over years isn't of any particular bother to me.
skibum5 wrote:
I actually think birds and wildlife is one place where the D800 is certainly better. You get SMALLER files (16MP vs 22MP) with MORE detail (high sensor density) for all of the times when the wildlife is far enough away that it won't go past DX borders (which can rather often) and in those cases the same fps (6). (unless conditions are so bad that you are maybe ISO5000 and up)
I should have typed "for me" the D800 is not a realistic alternative. The DX files only have more detail if you are focal length limited and need to crop though. If you aren't cropping then it really isn't an advantage in my mind. However, it's the sum of the things that makes me like the 5D Mark III that much more. I really have no desire for a 36mp landscape camera. 22mp is fine with me. I reserve the right to change my mind!
The only two real shortcomings of the 5d2 were autofocus and shadow noise. The 5d3 resolved one of those shortcomings but did very little to improve the other one. This is the reason why I consider the 5d3 neither a good value nor the ideal camera. It's close in many ways, but the dynamic range still suffers considerably due to the shadow noise.
There still is no Canon camera that does absolutely everything I want. I was hoping the 5d3 would be it.
StarNut wrote:
The early adapters, whether professional or not, are those who see value in the new toy (in addition to those who just have to have the latest toy).
I bought a 10D in 2004, and kept it until I replaced it with a 5D2 in 2010. I'm hardly one who has to have the latest toy.
I bought the 5D3 because it pretty well seemed to remedy the shortcomings in the (very fine) 5D2. I had been happy with the 5D2/7D combination, but I never got completely past the significantly lower IQ of the 7D (especially at higher ISO settings). The 5D3, to a large extent, combines the best of the two, without having files so huge that my laptop is totally shut down trying to process the files.
The D800 is of no interest to me, and I don't much care how much it costs. I can't begin to understand those who jump from Nikon to Canon, or the other way around, because of one camera. For all those who whine that the 5d3 "costs too much," it's "extra cost" is a tiny bit compared to swapping equipment. And I'll keep this camera for some years; frankly, a few hundred dollars amortized over years isn't of any particular bother to me.
I agree completely! I have been in love with my 5D2 since the day I bought it 3 years ago because of the IQ and incredible high-ISO performance. However it just was not a camera that was up to the task of sports photography with the limitations of its AF system and its low fps. I have had both the 7D and the 1DMkIV as my sports bodies. The 1DMkIV is the most fun to shoot body I've ever owned. Unfortunately, neither have the high ISO noise performance of the 5D2. I now have the 5D3 and have not had enough time to put it through its paces. However, if it proves to have even better IQ and better high-ISO noise performance while at the same time having a fast & accurate AF system, it will be worth every penny to me; and the icing on the cake is the new silent mode. I shoot a lot of weddings and having a camera with excellent high-ISO IQ that can therefore do a good job of shooting in the low ambient light of most churches, and is quiet enough to not be obtrusive, will be awesome. That combined with the ability to do a good job of shooting high school sports in very poorly-lit stadiums and gymnasiums. Works for me! I just hope that the 5D3 will measure up to the claims and my hopes.
form wrote:
The only two real shortcomings of the 5d2 were autofocus and shadow noise. The 5d3 resolved one of those shortcomings but did very little to improve the other one. This is the reason why I consider the 5d3 neither a good value nor the ideal camera. It's close in many ways, but the dynamic range still suffers considerably due to the shadow noise.
There still is no Canon camera that does absolutely everything I want. I was hoping the 5d3 would be it.
5D3 is a little frustrating since they got so much so right and then they had to go stick old outdated sensor tech that has half a decade old dynamic range at low ISO and then cripple video just enough to make it not hwat it could and should have been..... but that seems to be the way of Canon, always milk one bit too far and cripple one thing too much, sooo close to truly amazing cam, it's still very good
Anyway it is pretty good all that said, lots of great stuff.
Anyone thinks we will be getting some stock of 5D3 soon in April/US stores? I am 3 weeks since on hold by Amazon and no clue about. Light leak recall might take month, two or longer? Where is BH person?
Breitling65 wrote:
Anyone thinks we will be getting some stock of 5D3 soon in April/US stores? I am 3 weeks since on hold by Amazon and no clue about. Light leak recall might take month, two or longer? Where is BH person?
I'm wondering the same, I ordered from B+H on 3/15 and am anxiously waiting.
