Will Patterson wrote:
What the heck is so appealing about the D800? Am I missing something? 36 MP doesn't do anything for me, those files would be twice as big for 99% of the people that will be shooting with it. 4 fps is on par with the old 5D2. Less ISO range. Weaker AF.
Are you guys really that hard up for megapixels? Really??
36MP, 14-15 stops of banding-free base ISO dynamic range, projected High ISO performance within a 1/3 stop of the D3s (at equal print sizes), Pro AF, f/8 AF points, -2EV AF, most flexible Auto ISO implementation available, built-in flash, Nikon CLS, clean HDMI video output, $3000
Will Patterson wrote:
What the heck is so appealing about the D800? Am I missing something? 36 MP doesn't do anything for me, those files would be twice as big for 99% of the people that will be shooting with it. 4 fps is on par with the old 5D2. Less ISO range. Weaker AF.
Are you guys really that hard up for megapixels? Really??
AF at f/8 for one...$500 cheaper for another. If Nikon can manage to pull a quick one and offer s/mRAW they will have a HUGE hit on their hands.
Is Canon going to discontinue the 5D2, or will it remain in the line up as a lower cost full frame option for those who don't need the extra features of the 5D3?
Point is Canon offers a pro 1D X at 6.800. And a new pro 5D III at half price. Great, isnīt it? For both cameras there is no competitor in the market. Nikon just offers a D4 at 2MP, 2FPS, 2 stops in hign ISO less at a couple of hundreds $ less? And a no competitor at 14MP more for MP freaks (at old aged IQ) that do not have customers. What is the problem here? Canon just announced the two No 1 cameras of the world market. Without competitors. So they can dictate the price. We (customers) will accept. Else it will go down. Its just that easy.
The cost of this gear in production will NEVER overcom $ 750 a unit. The rest is money for marketing, subsideries, distribution, resale etc. etc. profit, profit, profit.
Why not? If it helps me to generate profit for myself ... should I say "NO"!
I have to pay the same for Greece not going down the line the next two month. Without having a chance to choose. Or changing anything. I prefere to purchase a 5D III!
Will Patterson wrote:
What the heck is so appealing about the D800? Am I missing something? 36 MP doesn't do anything for me, those files would be twice as big for 99% of the people that will be shooting with it. 4 fps is on par with the old 5D2. Less ISO range. Weaker AF.
I typically shoot on a tripod at ISO 100 and manual focus. So for me, what the heck is so appealing about the 5DIII at $3500?
Are you really going to fault someone for having different shooting needs than you do?
Ralph Conway wrote:
For both cameras there is no competitor in the market.
That's a rather unusual assertion. I don't think many people will agree.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I have to pay the same for Greece not going down the line the next two month. Without having a chance to choose. Or changing anything. I prefere to purchase a 5D III!
What do you mean, "prefer"? You're paying for the Greeks anyway :-)
Dave C wrote:
I paid $3,200 for an original 5D at launch.
Suckers are born every minute and they first in line for camera "upgrades".
Canon knows it.
I bought my 5D at $1900 and might but a 5D MK2 for same price...
First in liners just bend over backwards with open mouths.
Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.
You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII.
If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200 Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!
Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year! (3x400.)
Quite a bargain I'd say. The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it.
mmurph wrote:
Well, look at the REAL cost to own these things.
Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.
You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII.
If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200 Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!
Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year! (3x400.)
Quite a bargain I'd say. The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it....Show more →
Not everyone sells their cameras everytime they upgrade. Some keep their previous generation camera as a backup.
No, I do not think so. But what is your problem? For what you need all cameras starting at D1000 is okay, right? For you D5 III is not appeiling. Okay.
For others it is very appeiling. Iso 6400 without shadow banding is very appeiling to me. Better AF (much better) is no fault. Next to high ISO 6400 better than everything I saw before, EV -2 like 1D X is by far the best of all. $ 3500 for that is much money. But compared to $ 3000 for nothing (for me) or what ever is offered, it looks stil like a gift. 2nd best AF is a great help. At half price of best its again ... a gift.
Thank you Canon.
artd wrote:
I typically shoot on a tripod at ISO 100 and manual focus. So for me, what the heck is so appealing about the 5DIII at $3500?
Are you really going to fault someone for having different shooting needs than you do?
sirimiri wrote:
For film costs, I'd say full-frame digital is more akin to the larger formats...certainly not 135 at this point.
Yes. I gave up 645 & 6x7 when I got the 1DsII. It wasn't planned, just happened.
6x7 was $1 per frame. from 1998-2003, I spent at least $5,000 a year on film & developing. Digital is the best thing ever for me!
As far as keeping the old camera - the calculation is stil the same. You just push it back 1 generation.
Every time a camera came out, I would compare the marginal cost of the expected depreciation on the new camera, vs. the cost to hold the existing camera (current used selling price - future used selling price.) In most cases the incremental cost of the new camera was not very high at all.
Let's say the 5DII is worth $1,800 right now. Maybe in 2 years you can sell it for $1,000? Cost per year is $400.
Compare that to the 5D3 at $3,500. Lets say you could sell it in 2 years at $2,000 (where 5D2 was at 3 years). Cost per year of $750.
So incremental cost is $350 per year. But if the 5DII has 60K shots and might need a new shutter at $400, the net cost of the 5D2 goes to $800 + $400 = $1,200 vs. $1,500 for the 5D3.
So - is the 5D3 worth the incremental $300, or $150 per year? For my purposes, it has always been worthwhile to upgrade based on those calculations.
I'm not quite sure why people are trying to rationalize the rather large price increase when the competition is offering a body that outspecs it in many areas on paper for $500 less. You can make attempts to blame it on exchange rates, on updated features or on anything else, but all you would be doing is making excuses, falling into an apologist mindset. The same applies to nearly every other product Canon has released/announced within the past year. IMO it's price gouging, plain and simple.
KaaX wrote:
That's a rather unusual assertion. I don't think many people will agree.
What do you mean, "prefer"? You're paying for the Greeks anyway :-)
Yes to Greece. And itīs okay. But paying for a camera is my own decision.
I do not care if you think not many people will agree. The only person who counts in MY photographic needs is me. And for me there are only two cameras on the market, worth to think about a purchase. 1D X and 5D III. I prefere 5D III. Because I do not need double framerate, but half price is very welcome. Who is competing with 5D III/1D X specs. For my needs? Best IQ at highest ISO? I do not know any other body. If you know, I might have past something and I would be happy about any advice.
I like to save money.
Ralph I think this is one awesome camera and it is half the price of 1dx. We have been screaming for features, we have got most of the things everyone is hoping for. It is here, sure it might be more than we expect but then there is always a price for technology improvements. I have learnt that in computers . I am not as fortunate as US residents as they always get better price for most of their goods (due to their purchasing power) but I am have accepted that now. I am just glad that I have so many choices. If I need to save for the 5dmkIII I will.
. I am not as fortunate as US residents as they always get better price for most of their goods (due to their purchasing power) but I am have accepted that now. I am just glad that I have so many choices. If I need to save for the 5dmkIII I will.