Jim Levitt wrote:
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....Show more →
"SHOULD HAVE" had?? Is that in the same vein as "the AL SHOULD get rid of the DH", or "The academy SHOULD HAVE given the best picture Oscar to Moneyball"??
Come on; Canon sold the camera with a set of features they chose carefully to fit in the overall product line they offered. They chose to carefully protect their flagship camera segment at the time (1DS series), so didn't offer "pro" AF.
Somehow you guys forget that Canon created the 5D classic as the first "affordable" FULL FRAME camera - and had to limit its feature set enough not to harm the 1ds line while at the same time offering a FF sensor. When Nikon countered with their fullframe d700, canon came out with the 5d2 and put VIDEO on it as a feature distinction and NOT pro AF.
The fact that YOU think it SHOULD HAVE been done differently is understood, but somehow Canon managed to make a fortune off of the 5d2 by doing what they did.
When 5DMK2 came here, it was around 70k of our currency, direct conversion from USD says that 5DMK3 costs around 66k of our currency. Which in fact is much much less due economic and currency shifts.
Sure I have yet to see RAW files from 5DMK3, but for now it looks like everything I would like (except no tilt-swivel screen, but that can be fixed for some additional price). And Im person that doesnt like 5DMK2 too much.. (cause things that 5DMK3 will probably cure).
timbop wrote:
"SHOULD HAVE" had?? Is that in the same vein as "the AL SHOULD get rid of the DH", or "The academy SHOULD HAVE given the best picture Oscar to Moneyball"??
Come on; Canon sold the camera with a set of features they chose carefully to fit in the overall product line they offered. They chose to carefully protect their flagship camera segment at the time (1DS series), so didn't offer "pro" AF.
Somehow you guys forget that Canon created the 5D classic as the first "affordable" FULL FRAME camera - and had to limit its feature set enough not to harm the 1ds line while at the same time offering a FF sensor. When Nikon countered with their fullframe d700, canon came out with the 5d2 and put VIDEO on it as a feature distinction and NOT pro AF.
The fact that YOU think it SHOULD HAVE been done differently is understood, but somehow Canon managed to make a fortune off of the 5d2 by doing what they did....Show more →
Yes, it should have had a better AF system than the antiquated, sub par, three year old system Canon implemented in the original 5D. The only reason Canon made out as well as they did with the 5DII is because of resolution and video.
Jim Levitt wrote:
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....Show more →
I do kind of agree with you. Personally I don't know if it should have had 1 series focussing, but much better than it was - yes. Amazing low light sensor without the focussing was a strange move.
cordellwillis wrote:
"obsolete" as in broken, non-functioning Or does that have more to do with wants over needs?
If you want a two-generations old camera as a 2nd backup there is no reason you can't keep it. But that reply was to someone else who apparently thought it was strange to even use a one-generation old camera as a backup to a new one.
I won't presume to tell anyone else what they should do when buying a new camera. But my original point is that not everyone sells their old body when they buy a new body because an old body is often valuable to the photographer as a backup.
splathrop wrote:
I think there are commenters here who think (accurately in some cases) that having the best gear makes a difference, either in the kinds of pictures they can make, or in the commercial opportunities that will become available. Taking that as a given, do they notice any contradiction when they complain about prices? If you are relying on your gear to give you a leg up over the competition, isn't it BETTER to pay a price your more casual competitors will be unwilling to match? Or is it simply that the price complaints are coming from the casual competitors?
So you are saying that it is poor business sense to want to spend less money?
skibum5 wrote:
But do you see any piece in it that would make it cost even $1 more than the D800 to produce?
You are like a broken record...
Do you know what a bill of materials is? Have you ever lead an engineering effort to develop audio/video technology? Have you seen their profit/loss statements for the thailand floods? Do you know what their advertising budgets or costs of doing business are?
Frankly you don't have a clue what is involved in an engineering effort, much less marketing effort to bring a product to market. There is *WAY* more involved than the parts costs. Please do some research before coming to half-assed conclusions about what something costs.
Canon's mistake with the 5D, repeated with the 5D Mark II, was that they assumed the cameras would be bought by experienced photographers who knew how to get an image in focus and who not have to depend on the camera to do everything for them.
With the 5D Mark III, I'm sure the next wave of complaints will be about how the camera does such a crappy job with composition...
Do you know what a bill of materials is? Have you ever lead an engineering effort to develop audio/video technology? Have you seen their profit/loss statements for the thailand floods? Do you know what their advertising budgets or costs of doing business are?
Frankly you don't have a clue what is involved in an engineering effort, much less marketing effort to bring a product to market. There is *WAY* more involved than the parts costs. Please do some research before coming to half-assed conclusions about what something costs.
yes but it's not like the nikon D800 engineered itself for free either, come on
and I said in other posts ON THE FACE OF IT it didn't seem like there was anything in it compared to the D800 that should make it cost more, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but on the face of it it didn't look like it especially when taken with the claim that it has healthier profit margin on release than the prior generation (although who knows the true accuracy of that statement)
maybe the AF and this and that will turn out to function way better and it will be worth more than the D800, maybe not
artd wrote:
Here's the part I don't get...traditionally as time goes on, if you stay at the same level of technology the price drops, or if you stay at the same pricepoint, the technology improves. And sometimes you get improved technology and a better pricepoint in the same generation.
Consider the historical context. The 5D was introduced at an MSRP of $3299. The 5DII offered revolutionary new features and was introduced at a price of $2699. The 5DIII offers modest improvements over the 5DII and is $3499.
If Canon had come out with this camera a couple of years ago at $3499, I would have understood the premium pricing for improved autofocus and more fps over the 5DII. But three years later, as an update, these improvements seem like they are adequate enough to keep up with the competition, but hardly revolutionary.
So, to sum up, the 2nd generation camera was revolutionary over the 1st generation camera and priced $600 less; the 3rd generation camera is a conservative upgrade to the 2nd generation camera and is priced $800 more.
timbop wrote:
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).
Nikon has undercut Canon for 4-5 years?
Have you ever actually looked at the price of Nikon gear and BTW, what's life like on your planet?
A lot of Canon gear has been over priced in the last 5 years, but they've only recently begun gouging with abandon. At least Nikon has a reason for charging higher prices for lenses - they provide a 5 year warranty compared to Canon's relative "you bought it, you own it" one year. Body prices have never come close. Nikon bodies have always been more expensive, and I'm talking about the prices over decades, not the 4 weeks since the D800 was announced.
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.
Partially agree; if it wasn't for video, the 5d2 would have been selling for $2000 a 12-18 months after release. Canon also probably limited production (just as they did on the batteries) to maintain pricing. The D700 (D3/s series too) were only 12mp so people jumped on the mp bandwagon, but it certainly wasn't because nikon's IQ was crap or inferior. If anything, in many conditions it was superior.
If Nikon can buy a sensor from Sony, put everything in their camera and sell it for $3k, then Canon's premium for finally offering what they should have done 3 years ago is too high. Way too high. Will Canon lower prices? Only if enough people have the ability to say enough is enough ( exchange rate be damned) and not buy. There's no other way to communicate to them.
Do you know what a bill of materials is? Have you ever lead an engineering effort to develop audio/video technology? Have you seen their profit/loss statements for the thailand floods? Do you know what their advertising budgets or costs of doing business are?
Frankly you don't have a clue what is involved in an engineering effort, much less marketing effort to bring a product to market. There is *WAY* more involved than the parts costs. Please do some research before coming to half-assed conclusions about what something costs.
Consumers don't have to understand all of this. They look at the options available vote with their wallet, and all the operational/development costs be dammed. That D800 is looking really nice right now and I don't care how much it cost to develop the 5DIII. Having said that I am not readjusting my current commitment with Nikon or Canon equipment until see how the 2 cameras compare. But certainly the points you have brought up will have no bearing on my final decision, nor should they for anybody else.
galenapass wrote:
Consumers don't have to understand all of this. They look at the options available vote with their wallet, and all the operational/development costs be dammed. That D800 is looking really nice right now and I don't care how much it cost to develop the 5DIII. Having said that I am not readjusting my current commitment with Nikon or Canon equipment until see how the 2 cameras compare. But certainly the points you have brought up will have no bearing on my final decision, nor should they for anybody else.
I agree (mostly).
I too am waiting to see, but have pretty much decided not to buy the 5d3 at that price no matter what. I've decided I just don't care as much anymore
What everyone can take to the bank is a single fact - it costs Nikon more to build & market a camera than it does Canon. Who cares about a bill of materials? All companies have them and it means nothing. Nikon sources more from outside (has to pay a sensor premium), they're a smaller company with fewer resources, and they've never been willing to give away the store. What matters is fully loaded costs and multipliers/margins. Nikon's margins have always been healthy, Canon's are getting... well, it appears Canon's are getting a little []
M Vers wrote:
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.
The grip for the D800 is the same I believe. Still doesn't justify the price.
Not sticking up for Canon, but the comparisons to the Nikon D700 are sort of weak...
The 5D2 has a more accurate and more sensitive center point. Yeah, it's not all we want, but acting like the D700 had "pro" AF is sort of a joke...
RobertLynn wrote:
Not sticking up for Canon, but the comparisons to the Nikon D700 are sort of weak...
The 5D2 has a more accurate and more sensitive center point. Yeah, it's not all we want, but acting like the D700 had "pro" AF is sort of a joke...
After a little testing at PMA/CES this year, I can say with 10,000% certainty that the ACCURACY of the Nikon D700's AF system is far better and more consistent than the Canon 5D II.
I tested them side by side - my 5D II vs the showcased D700, again and again, with different lenses (including my 50L, 85L, etc.) vs. the Nikon 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, etc., at wide open apertures. The difference showed me how pathetic a comparison the 5D II was to the D700 in AF performance. The D700 did not miss...it also was able to analyze and focus on finer lines that made my 5D II hunt perpetually, forever, with center point focus. I taught the Nikon people that day about how you can make a 5D II hunt forever with the right subject, even with center point, and never get the focus right. The D700 focused on the same spot easily and accurately. What's more, the 5D II doubled back on many occasions of testing, which slowed AF acquisition. The D700 never doubled back that I could tell...it hit the first time and it did so ACCURATELY. if it doubled back, it wasn't noticeable at all.
So...compared to Canon, I am currently 100% sold on Nikon having superior AF accuracy with their previous generation of bodies. I don't know about the 5D III or the 1DX.
?? Is that in the same vein as "the AL SHOULD get rid of the DH", or "The academy SHOULD HAVE given the best picture Oscar to Moneyball"??
