I thought the camera price was high, but can live with it. Same with the flash. But I just noticed the price of the new grip - almost $500 That is friggin ridiculous!!!
The old grip sells in Canada for around $190 new!! The new is more then double
Yes, the 5D was similarly priced on intro. But I waited nearly two years to buy with grip for around $3200. I'd hate to have to do that again. I may likely get a used 5D2 until then. $2700 is my go-button.
Some of you are funny.
$3000 vs $3500. Big deal, only 16%.
What with inflation & the value of the dollar, what did you expect?
Then of course it does have more features/perf.
The price will come down, if demand slackens.
This is not like the Sigma joke at nearly $10K that is now at $2700
Doesn't anyone remember the original 5D was list at $3300 when it came out in 2005, so $200 more 7 years later is not really a surprise. Simply put the 5D MK lll is what I was hoping for with the 5D Mk ll. In any case, I preorder a pair of 5D MK lll bodies to replace my 5D Classic bodies, thank you Canon
KFG1 wrote:
Doesn't anyone remember the original 5D was list at $3300 when it came out in 2005, so $200 more 7 years later is not really a surprise. Simply put the 5D MK lll is what I was hoping for with the 5D Mk ll. In any case, I preorder a pair of 5D MK lll bodies to replace my 5D Classic bodies, thank you Canon
Yet the 5DII, which came out three years after the 5D, was priced at $2700 off the bat. What people don't seem to understand is that the 5D was the first ever consumer FF body that had ZERO competition upon release. You cannot say the same now.
M Vers wrote:
I guess that doesn't apply to Nikon, another Japanese manufacturer. Odd.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of undercutting the competition - Nikon has had to do it for the last 4-5 years and they still haven't overtaken Canon. For all the praise heaped on Nikon for the D700, it sill was outsold handily by the 5D2 (there are several posts around listing actual figures). IMHO, this was due to the IQ and stellar HD video. I am guessing Nikon attributed that to the sensor density and video, so countered with the specs of the D800. Canon correctly recognized the shortcomings of the 5D2's AF and countered with the 5D3 - and had the sense to optimize the sensor size for a 3x3 binning of HD video. Whether you like it or not, Canon stumbled onto a vast untapped market and they have had no reason to cut their margins the way Nikon has had to.
Yes, the prices from canon have been extremely high - hopefully that will give an edge to Nikon to hurt canon's sales figures enough for Canon to counter with price cuts.
M Vers wrote:
Yet the 5DII, which came out three years after the 5D, was priced at $2700 off the bat. What people don't seem to understand is that the 5D was the first ever consumer FF body that had ZERO competition upon release. You cannot say the same now.
Maybe so, but many of us passed on the 5D Mk ll because of the AF or for a variety other reasons. So, I don't think the price is as out of line as the price of some of the new lens that have recently came out, seriously $1000 more for the new 24-70L? I'll past on that and keep my old glass. I really wish Canon would bring out new telephoto lens options without IS and a lower price point. In any case, I'm happy with what the 5D Mk lll has to offer, so the price really means little to me. Again, Thanks Canon for bringing out the camera I really wanted.
timbop wrote:
BINGO! We have a winner - or least a rational post.
The price will come down if they don't sell as many as expected
M Vers wrote:
I guess that doesn't apply to Nikon, another Japanese manufacturer. Odd.
Definitely, at $2,995, Nikon prices the D800 very aggressively. They do that since they want to lure more people onto their camp. And in order to do that, they are willing to make less profit, it seems.
I've been pretty happy with my 5D2 and 7D but am interested in the new models too. I'm going to wait for comparison reviews of the 5D2, 5D3 and 1Dx before I decide which camera is worth what to me. Most likely I won't do anything before this Fall anyway when my work could justify an upgrade in camera body. I waited for the 1D4 to drop to $4500, the point I determined it was worth purchasing, and it never really got there. I got by without it so I guess it wasn't really needed. It would have been nice though. lol
I can't see complaining about the price. The market will decide it it is correct or not. Luckily, I'm in a position to give it time to sort itself out. (I did bitch about the 1D4 intro price though, lol)
There is undercutting and then there is price gouging. Canon's recent pricing reflects the latter, not only in regards to the 5DIII but also every single other product announced within the past year. A battery grip for $500, a flash for $630, a wireless transmitter for $470, a 24-70 for $2300, a 200-400 for 11k etc etc.
KFG1 wrote:
Maybe so, but many of us passed on the 5D Mk ll because of the AF or for a variety other reasons. So, I don't think the price is as out of line as the price of some of the new lens that have recently came out, seriously $1000 more for the new 24-70L? I'll past on that and keep my old glass. I really wish Canon would bring out new telephoto lens options without IS and a lower price point. In any case, I'm happy with what the 5D Mk lll has to offer, so the price really means little to me. Again, Thanks Canon for bringing out the camera I really wanted. ...Show more →
So what you're saying is it's OK for Canon to skip a feature set that should have been included in the first place and then charge $800 more for it later down the road?
I don't want anyone to get this twisted, I like the improvements the 5DIII has to offer, but the pricing is just awful, especially in comparison to the competition.
dswiger wrote:
Some of you are funny.
$3000 vs $3500. Big deal, only 16%.
What with inflation & the value of the dollar, what did you expect?
Then of course it does have more features/perf.
The price will come down, if demand slackens.
This is not like the Sigma joke at nearly $10K that is now at $2700
What about $4000...that is only 14% more than $3500. And if $4000 is ok, why not $4500, which is only 12% higher than $4000. Get the picture?
Dave C wrote:
They may have done so with both cameras, or just with the MkIII. I have no idea how the total manufacturing/marketing cost of each camera compares.
I thought he said they made sure to make the profit margin very large THIS TIME.
But who knows for sure.
But do you see any piece in it that would make it cost even $1 more than the D800 to produce?
As for Yen vs USD well the D800 intro price is LESS than the D700 intro price.
KFG1 wrote:
Doesn't anyone remember the original 5D was list at $3300 when it came out in 2005, so $200 more 7 years later is not really a surprise. Simply put the 5D MK lll is what I was hoping for with the 5D Mk ll. In any case, I preorder a pair of 5D MK lll bodies to replace my 5D Classic bodies, thank you Canon
Since DSLR's are basically electronic gizmos, they should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. I paid $5000 for my dual floppy based PC in the early eighty's. Given the logic we are trying to use to justify camera price increases, we should be paying $50,000 for today's computers.
chez wrote:
Since DSLR's are basically electronic gizmos, they should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. I paid $5000 for my dual floppy based PC in the early eighty's. Given the logic we are trying to use to justify camera price increases, we should be paying $50,000 for today's computers.
Hm, computer prices have been relatively stable for the last 5 years.
Anyway before we really decide we do need more information.
If the 5D3 focusing works better than the D800/D4....
If the 5D3 video has a lot less moire/aliasing and better resolution....
If the 5D3 somehow manages to match the D800 ISO 100 DR....
If the 5D3 metering somehow works better or least as well as then D800 metering....
and if you don't care about more MP and reach and intervalometers and in-built flash then the 5D3 might well easily be worth $500 more.
OTOH, if the AF turns out to be worse, if the D800 video quality is as good (plus having crop mode and hdmi out) and it has much better metering and much better low ISO DR then it would seem hard to justify the price of the 5D3 being even the same never mind $500 more.
My guess is that the 5D3 AF will be better, but it's a pretty wild guess, and who knows by how much even if so, it's possible it might even be noticeably better, but maybe it is a 1D3 all over again.
My guess it the 5D3 metering will be noticeably worse.
My guess is the 5D3 will trail by at least a stop in low ISO DR and be only a trace better for SNR at high iso.
My latest guess is the 5D3 may have much less moire/aliasing/noise in video and do much better there.
We will see. Maybe it will be worth $500 more, maybe not even close, remains to be seen.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
So when the 5D2 came three and half years ago. You expected that body to have better AF then the 1Ds3 ? More AF points then the 1Ds3 ? Better resolution then the 1Ds3 ? Faster writing to the memory cards and better buffer then the 1Ds3 ? And so on...............
Now you're being absolutely literal. The 5D2 should have had an AF system at least as good as that of the 1DS2. That would have made it much more of an all-around camera, to fill the same slot as the D700 did on the Nikon side. It was absurd that Canon sold a body with their best low light capability, but with an extremely limited AF system. In other words: the 5D2 should have been equipped with close to the best contemporary systems that Canon had to offer. The 5D3 looks to be that sort of camera, relative to current offerings, finally. Three and a half years later.
That is friggin ridiculous!!!