Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Yes this camera is obviously not for you. But then you have to buy another body that will fit your needs. It's not like Canon should change this camera so it will fit you
Exactly! What works great for one person is not so appealing to someone else. I don't get what people don't understand about that. I don't go around saying things like "oh..I don't get why you're so hard up for better autofocus" or "3 fps should be enough for anyone" :P
I never said I expected them to change this camera. But I can say that it is disappointing for those like me who were drawn to the Canon system by the combination of a high megapixel body (by comparison to what was available three years ago) and excellent TSE lenses which made the 5DII the camera of choice for architecture and landscape work. The 5DIII doesn't follow in that same tradition. It address what other people saw as shortcomings. Understandable. But the point is there is still a market segment not fulfilled by this.
(Also I don't necessarily need to buy another body. At least not right away. I plan to stick with my current setup for the time being. If Canon does not announce something else this year though I will probably start looking at other options down the road.)
cineski wrote:
I'd say this was true if Canon had announced first! But they announced after. I'd venture to say Canon's response to the D800 was keeping the 5D2 in production and moving the 5D3 into a "gap filler" role which it's not.
Yeah notice how they keep saying it is NOT a 5D2 replacement but something to sit between the 5D2 and 5D3? If that had really been the plan they would have called it a 3D and given it 7.5fps of the Aquatech rumor. They just say that now to they can try to charge $3500 since there camera, unlike the D800, does NOT replace the prior model....
Sort of like how they called the 1D5 the 1DX so they could charge half way or more to 1Ds prices for the 1D series.
Ziffl3 wrote:
and as for price increase - why would a new camera cost the same as an earlier model?
Maybe because the 30D cost less than the 20D and the 40D and 50D cost less than the 20D and the 5D2 cost less than the 5D and Nikon hasn't upped their prices any. So by past history it actually should have cost less if anything. Looking at the D800 it simply should not be above the $3000 of that body.
Peter Le wrote:
It is not the same AF as you will soon find out
Why do you say it is not the same AF? I feared it wouldn't be when they talked about simplified, but so far I've read that is uses the exact same AF detector, has all of the same options, uses the same exact AI Servo algorithms and an AF chip that is 4x faster than the one in the 1D4 (maybe the 1DX chip is faster still though) so all it lacks is the auto-face/color tracking system, everything else appears to be 100% full on 1DX AF so it seems like it's barely simplied at all, but pretty much the same thing.
In 1992 I bought a new Nikon F4s for around $2200.00 retail, with inflation that is equal to about $3600.00 today, I guess the price of the 5DIII isn't so crazy.
skibum5 wrote:
Why do you say it is not the same AF? I feared it wouldn't be when they talked about simplified, but so far I've read that is uses the exact same AF detector, has all of the same options, uses the same exact AI Servo algorithms and an AF chip that is 4x faster than the one in the 1D4 (maybe the 1DX chip is faster still though) so all it lacks is the auto-face/color tracking system, everything else appears to be 100% full on 1DX AF so it seems like it's barely simplied at all, but pretty much the same thing. ...Show more →
Yes it is the same AF. Just without the auto-face/color tracking.
Ektar25 wrote:
In 1992 I bought a new Nikon F4s for around $2200.00 retail, with inflation that is equal to about $3600.00 today, I guess the price of the 5DIII isn't so crazy.
In 1992 I bought a 33mz 486 computer for around $2,500. Using the same comparative logic the price of the 5DIII is totally insane.
There may be lots of good reasons to spend $3500 on the camera but some of the justifications for the price are really stretching it pretty thin. If folks think it is a fair price or priced so that they can make a fair return for their investment then go for it. Seems out of whack to me but I can't do a damn thing about so I'll factor that belief into what ever buying decision I make.
dehowie wrote:
I can stone cold guarrantee you the MK2 was way more than 2000 at launch. Why compare price on a brand new state of the art camera with way more capability with one now 3-4 years old at the end of its tech cycle.
I believe it was about $2500, though I might be off a bit.
