artd wrote:
So, you are chiding us for wanting to be thrifty? We should not want value? We should gladly accept the asking price because this corporation is doing us a favor? We should not each evaluate a product based on our own needs and judge whether we think it is worth the cost? We should just assume that the corporation’s pricing is fair and just?
I do find it strange that when Canon raises prices it seems there’s no shortage of folks who feel they have to jump in to defend the company. If your phone bill goes up goes up, are you not unhappy about that? Or when gas prices go up, how come people don’t go around defending oil companies with the same zeal?
While I like some of their products, I’m not in the business of running a Canon fanclub and I am not a charity for any company, camera manufacturer or otherwise.
artd,
i am all for evaluating and seeing if the camera meets our individual needs.... good stuff.
the reason i did not buy a 5dmk2 was the semi-functional AF in low light.
...also ... no canon fanboy here .... just the tools for the job.
but....this thread is trying to decide if the 5dm3 is 1) better than the D800, 2) better than the 5dmk2, 3) is the camera even worth buying .....
and we have not even seen production models out in the wild ... for either camera, let alone any full reviews.
basically judge and jury in a day....
snapsy wrote:
haha, oh come on Ralph, you've gotta keep a kernel of believability if you're to have any chance of convincing the uninitiated that your Canon vs Nikon comparisons hold any water
I did with a friend in low light. And I was frightened about Nikons D700s AF. Result was 17% of focused hits compared to 65% (for 5D IIs center AF). He is an excellent photographer; shooting Nikon since 20 years. You do better? Lets shoot a wedding together.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But's it's inferior right. A native 16MP sensor RAW will look better than a 36MP sRAW. Canon throws pixels away rather than bin pixels, doesn't it?
TBH, I'm not quite sure of the details--I thought you would have known better than I. Regardless, this is the largest hangup for a lot of Nikon users in regards to the D800, specifically wedding, event and PJ shooters who don't always need 36mp. IMO, if it were to have s/mRAW, that type of sensor would be the perfect balance for me--shooting all my macro, wildlife and portraiture stuff at full res, and most of my wedding work at med-res. Having that option would be a huge benefit for someone like me.
newseum wrote:
Excellent point! +1000
I once said, if they put the 1 series AF in a 5 series, I'd gladly pay another $500. Given the weak dollar 5D III is still reasonable value in absolute terms and offers plenty over a 5D II IMO, but D800 has raised expectations of better price. I think it will drop reasonably quickly after initial pre-order sales clear.
M Vers wrote:
TBH, I'm not quite sure of the details--I thought you would have known better than I. Regardless, this is the largest hangup for a lot of Nikon users in regards to the D800, specifically wedding, event and PJ shooters who don't always need 36mp. IMO, if it were to have s/mRAW, that type of sensor would be the perfect balance for me--shooting all my macro, wildlife and portraiture stuff at full res, and most of my wedding work at med-res. Having that option would be a huge benefit for someone like me.
Why they do not? I do not understand. It should be easy to go down to 9MP. Its half each side?
Hrow wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. The D800 isn't going to attract a lot of event shooters but a D4 based small bodied "D750" sure would. Pretty nice combo for a pro - high MPs for studio formals and the speedy, high ISO king for the event folks. I suspect they would sell one of each to a lot working pros.
The thing that Nikon did that was brillant was announcing the high MP camera first. This established the upper price point. Canon comes along and sets its price for a lower MP camera higher. That's fine, but if they release a 5X at 36+ MP they are likely to have to have a hefty price increase. How in the world is anyone going to be able to argue that a 5DX is worth at least a $1,000 more than a D800? It may not matter to a lot of people but it clearly puts Canon into an indefensible position.
Same goes for a "D750". If Nikon prices that camera at $2500, the 5D3 looks even worse. Faster, better low light, much cheaper.. the only thing the 5D3 has going for it is a few more MP, which many people in the various 5D threads are saying is inconsequential (when defending the 5D vs the D800).
None of this really matters. It doesn't make one camera better for a particular user than other. However, I think in a couple of years folks will look back and marvel at how effectively Nikon skunked Canon on this round. Might be one of the reasons Canon replaced one old geezer at the top with an even older one. ...Show more →
I agree, the high pricing of the 5D III leaves them little wiggle room for a high MP version in rice. Unless a 36MP sensor really isn't much dearer to manufacture than a 22MP one, something I don't think is true as yields would be lower IMO, 5D X would be probably be another $500 dearer. But if 5D III drops to D800 price and 5D X was current 5D III price, I think it'll be a hit, even though there may be a few gripes still over price. It'll be interesting to see how the D800 sales stack up against 5D III. I some how think despiite this forums griping, in the real world the 5D III will sell very well, even better than 5D II.
Ziffl3 wrote:
artd,
i am all for evaluating and seeing if the camera meets our individual needs.... good stuff.
the reason i did not buy a 5dmk2 was the semi-functional AF in low light.
...also ... no canon fanboy here .... just the tools for the job.
but....this thread is trying to decide if the 5dm3 is 1) better than the D800, 2) better than the 5dmk2, 3) is the camera even worth buying .....
and we have not even seen production models out in the wild ... for either camera, let alone any full reviews.
basically judge and jury in a day....
Well, I didn't realize this thread was trying to decide anything, I just thought it was trying to say the price is too high
That said, the 5DIII...
1) ... is not going to better or worse than the D800. It is going to be different and likely will attract a different group of shooters at the outset, and the differences means it will be fruitless to try and label one as "better" than the other.
2) ... is going to be better than the 5DII (though the question of exactly how much better is impossible to answer without analyzing shooting priorities on an individual basis).
3) ... is obviously worth buying for some, given the fact that people are pre-ordering it. And it is obvioulsy not worth buying for others and I am doubtful that anything I see in any review is going to convince me it is worth buying at the current price.
You must be joking about everything is improved a lot from the mkII. Did you really expect it to be a lot better than the 1DX and cost about $ 2k or?
+1000
The 5D III is a huge upgrade. People are kidding themselves. They haven't just slapped a 1D X AF in a 5D II. This offers the best features of the 7D and many 1D X features and upgrades build quality. It's now as responsive as the 1 series This is an EOS 3D.
M Vers wrote:
TBH, I'm not quite sure of the details--I thought you would have known better than I. Regardless, this is the largest hangup for a lot of Nikon users in regards to the D800, specifically wedding, event and PJ shooters who don't always need 36mp. IMO, if it were to have s/mRAW, that type of sensor would be the perfect balance for me--shooting all my macro, wildlife and portraiture stuff at full res, and most of my wedding work at med-res. Having that option would be a huge benefit for someone like me.
I've never shot M/S RAW, but the tests performed I've seen, show it to be worse than down rezzing a full RAW in PS.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I did with a friend in low light. And I was frightened about Nikons D700s AF. Result was 17% of focused hits compared to 65% (for 5D IIs center AF).
17%? Not 18% or 16%? Nikon's focus acquisition is modestly slower across the board vs Canon but it's static AF accuracy is the same in my experience, at least for the center AF point. The outer points are a different matter since the 5DM2 doesn't have any usable ones to speak of in low light.
Ralph Conway wrote:
He is an excellent photographer; shooting Nikon since 20 years. You do better? Lets shoot a wedding together.
Do I do better than 17% accurate focus on subjects with Nikon bodies, even in low light? Yes I do. I do on Canon bodies as well.
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?
Chris. There is a "hide me" button. A nice feature here at fredmiranda.com. If you push it on me never again any of my comments will hurt your existence. I wish all things would be so easy to prevent.
Next to that: While you use this forum to let out your frustration about Canon the gear you are working with, just let me use it to tell people my pleasure about the Canon gear I am working with, okay?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I've never shot M/S RAW, but the tests performed I've seen, show it to be worse than down rezzing a full RAW in PS.
Me either, so I can't really comment on IQ 'degradation' due to using s/mRAW. That said, I wouldn't think it would be significant enough to steer people clear of the camera. If you happen to have a source on hand that compares the two feel free to PM it my way--I'd be interested.
snapsy wrote:
17%? Not 18% or 16%? Nikon's focus acquisition is modestly slower across the board vs Canon but it's static AF accuracy is the same in my experience, at least for the center AF point. The outer points are a different matter since the 5DM2 doesn't have any usable ones to speak of in low light.
Do I do better than 17% accurate focus on subjects with Nikon bodies, even in low light? Yes I do. I do on Canon bodies as well.
It was 17% based on the pics, we put out. I do better too. not on bodies but on center AF point. I am sure I would do with Nikon, too.
Mar 02, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Mark Metternich wrote:
1 mp in 3 years?! You kidding me?! Nikon here I come!
I agree, there you go . Even worse, the 1Ds Mark III of 21MP now got "downgraded" to 18MP in the form of a merged body, the 1DX. Another reason for you to sell your Canon gear... .
. Even worse, the 1Ds Mark III of 21MP now got "downgraded" to 18MP in the form of a merged body, the 1DX. Another reason for you to sell your Canon gear... 
.