Schlotkins wrote:
If only nikon was going to have an 8.5lb 600 f4 lens...
If Nikon would have had any of my (two) favorite lenses I need 90% and a D700 like camera at 15-20MP I would have shared both, Canon and Nikon the last 3 years.
Will Patterson wrote:
What the heck is so appealing about the D800?
Oh come on. Even if most people aren't going to use 36MP, they will probably find it appealing when compared to a 22MP camera that costs more. If you were making a camera decision without the burden of being locked in to a system, would you really think to yourself, "$500 less for 50% more pixels doesn't matter!"
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.
Yes, you are missing something. The fact that 36Mp "does nothing for you" says nothing about how "99% of the people who will be shooting with it" will use that extra resolution. What do you really know about the people that will be shooting with it? According to your made-up statistics, only one in every one-hundred people buying a $3000 camera going to generate a print larger than 16x20. That seems pretty unlikely to me.
4 fps is on par with the old 5D2. Less ISO range. Weaker AF.
Where do you get the impression that the D800 will have weaker AF? My D700's AF is as good as my EOS-1 camera. Are you just counting focus points?
Some consumers may thing 36MP ... great. And everybody shooting at ISO 800 might be happy, too. In ISO 3200 and above I would not offer my customers D800 pics. And they do not care about 36MP.
Of course, $ 500 more for the camera that fullfills my needs is worth it. $ 500 less for one that does not is not worth a thought. Is this so difficult to understand?
Sony came with a 24 MP camera some (two?) years ago. And people sayd! Hell, it is 24MP and much cheaper than Nikon and Canon. What does it mean? The gear went from the shelf to hobby shooters and now they stand in theire vitrines.
oajlu wrote: of course it's overpriced cuz many street/wedding photographers are overpaid, so Canon wants to get their share too.
That is the point. And you are wrong.
There is no overpriced photographer. Photographers just get what they ask for and its paid (or not).
I had customers, who told me: "Your pics are so good, you could have charged me twice!" Of course they told me after I had a price discussion, did my job and offered the result.
With cameras its equal. A (for me worthless) Leica at 10.000 is worth 10.000 as long as people pay for it. A 5D III that makes me money is worth 1000, 2000, 3000 or even 3500. Its worth whatever I decide to pay for.
I agree with you and I'd add that in May 2011 I chatted with the local Canon Rep and complained about the 5D III rumored $3500 launch price. Looks like the rumor site got that leaked price right and in the meantime I added three more minty but "used" Nikon lenses to my Canon-Nikon kits.
I would love to own 5D Mark III due to it's specs, & at $2,699 I'd preorder one.
Instead I'm considering a second D700 at $2,199 or less new and my current fantasy lens, 200-400mm VR II at $6,999 as opposed to getting in a long line for Canon's rumored price of $10,999 for 200-400 f4 L IS.
I'm glad I finally added 5D Mark II prior to Christmas 2011 for $1,999 bundled with $740 of generous B&H free~bees ,but the $3500 admission price is too big for me along with Version II Canon lens inflation prices like $2,300 to upgrade my optically fine 24-70mm Version 1.
Hats off to those who can drop the coins on the 5D III, I wish I could get one for me and one for the wife but that isn't in the camera budget. Whereas a brand new Nikon 200-400 f4 VR II could be for same money
M Vers wrote:
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.
Ralph Conway wrote:
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.
...Show more →
I have no problem with people who think this camera is perfect for them. I have a problem with people who think this camera is perfect for everyone. I have said this many times in other places.
For you it is a gift, I have no issue with that. If the camera is worth $3500 to you then I hope you will buy it and be happy. But I think it is silly for people to feel they have to defend Canon from those who think the camera is overpriced. No one is going to convince me it is worth my $3500.
Thatīs correct and like it should be. No camera is perfect for anybody. If they (Canon) or the specs do not convince you, nobody should try to do. But telling anybody "its not worth the money" is just a cry mentioning "I would love to get it, but I can not afford it!" That is okay, too. But the point is that there are so many trying to convince anybody, it is not worth the money, because they would like to get one and do not want to spend the money. THAT is awefull. And there is no excuse for. I was called a fanboy by so many people here in the Canon forum, shooting Nikon, because they changed sides. And they wanted to convince me I am an idiot to make their own decicion understandable. I am not here to give anybody who is not able to stay to his own decission a good feeling. I am here for getting information and MY good feeling. 5D III "feels" great to me. Again: It is that easy.
Point is (for me): When I saw the first and only ISO 6400 JPEG, I saw that I would shoot weddings or events in the future at 6.400 without developing 800-1200 frames. I would just do it in JPEG and give the pics to my customers without investing another 1.5 days for image rework. I would save time, earning the same amount of money. Based on this, the 5D III would pay itself within 6-8 weeks. With me saving half of my lifetime. Time to shoot what I like to shoot. Without earning money! Time to travel. Time to give back some of what world gave me. I think that is a nice idea, far away from what Canon and its marketing ever thought about.
But I thank Canon for it. Why not saying "thank you!"? What is so wrong in doing that?
Ralph? If we all clubbed together, would you go take a quick vacation until the 5D fuss has died down so I don't have to listen to your pidgen fanboyisms constantly?
You know damned well which camera gives you 8FPS for $3500 because it's been out for over 3 years and at least one person has held it up as what the 5DII should have been every single day since it was announced.
What are you getting out of derailing every single Canon thread with blinkered nonsense that stalls and reroutes every single debate? I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but this is just ridiculous, I'm 98% sure Canon could present us with the Canon EOS Gilded Turd Mark 1TS and you'd still defend their decision to charge 18k for it.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Robert, what camera gives you 8 FPS for $ 3500?
3 7D's?
5D3 is great for some people, but not me. I'm happy with my old Canon lenses bought at 1/2 the current prices.
Their pricing scheme to catch up with Nikon in the lens dept (7k for a 300/2.8?) needs matching competitive bodies, which they don't have at the moment.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Ralph? If we all clubbed together, would you go take a quick vacation until the 5D fuss has died down so I don't have to listen to your pidgen fanboyisms constantly?
You know damned well which camera gives you 8FPS for $3500 because it's been out for over 3 years and at least one person has held it up as what the 5DII should have been every single day since it was announced.
What are you getting out of derailing every single Canon thread with blinkered nonsense that stalls and reroutes every single debate? I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but this is just ridiculous, I'm 98% sure Canon could present us with the Canon EOS Gilded Turd Mark 1TS and you'd still defend their decision to charge 18k for it....Show more →
Ralph Conway wrote:
As far I know there is none. And of course not a new one offering great AF and ISO 25k. So what are we talking about. A 5 year old used 1D III?
That was mentioned to Robert, not you Chris. You just where faster then me.
5D3 is great for some people, but not me. I'm happy with my old Canon lenses bought at 1/2 the current prices.
Their pricing scheme to catch up with Nikon in the lens dept (7k for a 300/2.8?) needs matching competitive bodies, which they don't have at the moment.
Yes, but my question of course was combined with high ISO terms.
of course it's overpriced cuz many street/wedding photographers are overpaid, so Canon wants to get their share too.