I think main gripe for most might be that 5DMK3 seems to be expensive, but they fail to realize that whats inside isnt as cheap as 5DMK2 was.
100% OVF costs quite a bit
AF derived from 1D X cant be cheap
6 FPS is bit more expensive, as it needs whole mirror assembly to be better designed from better materials
What was in 5DMK2 was pretty much scrap, so it was cheaper, and if it was bit overpriced, it was overpriced for about same margin as 5DMK3 is.
Then there is 6D which isnt bad, or still old 5DMK2 (which is cheaper than all at SH price).
Dont like it? Sell it. Buy and sell forum is here for reason.
And if someone wants Canon to be Nikon, then perhaps is time to buy Nikon.
Mescalamba wrote:
I think main gripe for most might be that 5DMK3 seems to be expensive, but they fail to realize that whats inside isnt as cheap as 5DMK2 was.
100% OVF costs quite a bit
AF derived from 1D X cant be cheap
6 FPS is bit more expensive, as it needs whole mirror assembly to be better designed from better materials
What was in 5DMK2 was pretty much scrap, so it was cheaper, and if it was bit overpriced, it was overpriced for about same margin as 5DMK3 is.
Then there is 6D which isnt bad, or still old 5DMK2 (which is cheaper than all at SH price).
Dont like it? Sell it. Buy and sell forum is here for reason.
And if someone wants Canon to be Nikon, then perhaps is time to buy Nikon. ...Show more →
I disagree that this is the justification of the price tag of this camera. The AF system was simply transferred from 1D technology into the 5D III - this is no costly innovation at this point, neither do the parts of the AF justify the price. Thinking that the high price of a 1D camera systems justifies anything here, is simply wrong. From your list above, the 6 fps is likely the technology which costs most since it requires faster algorithms and performance. And come on, a prism to get a 100% viewfinder isn't too expensive either nowadays.
What really drives up cost in a camera, is the sensor technology itself. Since the sensor in the 5D III is not new, I really can't see why this camera should cost more than the 5D MkII formerly - and this already takes into account a big profit margin for the camera. No, the prices we have seen for the MkIII is simply pure marketing and an attempt to keep the profitability as high as possible. You can compare this a bit with the real production cost of an iPhone cellphone and for what it is sold for in the market.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
And the biggest improvement of the 5D3 over the 5D2 is the dual card slots so you can save S1 jpegs on the SD card in additon to the raws on the CF card to download as previews to your iPad to show to all your friends and family immediately because you know they won't give a hoot about your pictures by the time you get the raws all gussied up in Lightroom.
form wrote:
I'm a wedding photographer, but it's not my dream camera. It's pretty rounded overall, but the AF system isn't nearly as perfect as many people are claiming.
The consistency of AF accuracy in dim situations isn't much (if any) better than my 5d2 with center point, and outer points are better only with AF assist. The biggest benefits I notice for AF are outer points are more consistent in good light, and they can be used for tracking better in good/average light. In low light, they don't track well because they don't lock on for AI servo, forcing One Shot just like in the 5d2. I am not sure of direct comparison, but I tried to use the 5d3 almost exclusively for the really dark shots in the wedding two days ago because I expect a slightly better high ISO noise and I wanted to test the camera. Silent shutter mode is the second most significant improvement, I have been leaving it on all the time and so I am sacrificing that slightly faster shutter lag over the 5d2.
AF speed is, afaik, about the same as 5d2. No difference there, maybe less of that "delay" in dim light with AF assist before the AF motor turns on and begins to focus? Otherwise about the same...
No one is claiming it's perfect, but if you honestly believe it's not really any better than the 5D II then IMO there is no hope for you from Canon and I suggest you move to another brand, because AF wise it won't get better probably in the next 5-10 years, other than minor tweaks. The previous AF systems soldiered on for a decade or more. Clearly the Sony sensors used by Nikon offer much better shadow recovery and virtually noise free in those shadows. Not really sure why you didn't jump on a D600 or D800
Mescalamba wrote:
I think main gripe for most might be that 5DMK3 seems to be expensive...
I paid $200 more for my 5Dc than my 5D3 at about the same point in their life cycles. I paid less for the 5D2 but that was later in its cycle. I think production costs were decreasing during the 5D2's time frame, but like the increases in pixel density these benefits have leveled off. So while I agree that the 5D3 is more expensive to produce than the 5D2, the 5D2 was still a more solid camera than the 5Dc, i.e. its a progression. I also have to say that I have not seen a whole lot of difference in the image quality of the three cameras, they've increased the number of photo sites and DxO tests show they've added a little DR and controlled the pixel level noise, Other than resolution, I think you probably need DxO to tell the difference. There are still many who prefer the "look" of the 5Dc image. For this I'm grateful. Its a different story with their crop sensors - I still think my 40D produced the cleanest images of the crop bodies. IMHO
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Clearly the Sony sensors used by Nikon offer much better shadow recovery and virtually noise free in those shadows. Not really sure why you didn't jump on a D600 or D800
Many would do this instantly if Canon lenses could be used on Nikon bodies.....if you are vested in good Canon lenses, it is a hassle to switch. Best compromise might be to add a D800E system to the existing Canon gear with a few lenses, but then you are still limited to some degree in flexibility. Canon's 5D III is currently quite well saved by this incompatibility dilemma.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
No one is claiming it's perfect, but if you honestly believe it's not really any better than the 5D II then IMO there is no hope for you from Canon and I suggest you move to another brand, because AF wise it won't get better probably in the next 5-10 years, other than minor tweaks. The previous AF systems soldiered on for a decade or more. Clearly the Sony sensors used by Nikon offer much better shadow recovery and virtually noise free in those shadows. Not really sure why you didn't jump on a D600 or D800
He did, do a search for his posts and you'll see why most here are reacting the way we are.
pKai wrote:
...I don't think crucifying the OP for coming to a different conclusion than most people is the thing to do.
It's not that he has a different opinion than others, it's that he flat out said that those who think the III is a step above the II are dupes who have been drugged by Canon.
What Pixel said..
The accuracy when shooting with a 1.2 lens at 1.2 is a marked noticeable improvement.
You may not notice it at 5.6/7.1 or 8 but shoot at 1.2 and tell me the Mk3 isnt light years ahead of the Mk2 for accuracy.
That alone stands them part by some distance.
The advances on the Mk3 to me relate to everything other than IQ and there is still a slight improvement to consider there.
Try taking a 50/1.2 on he street shooting moving targets at night with your Mk2..im sure you will get a few but i guarantee you will get a huge pile more with the Mk3.
BrianO wrote:
It's not that he has a different opinion than others, it's that he flat out said that those who think the III is a step above the II are dupes who have been drugged by Canon.
BTW, I see that the original post was edited some 29 hours after it was made, removing the section cited above, but it's still viewable under the "preveious versions" option.
He wrote, "I don't know what kind of stupid drug Canon sent a bunch of reputable photogs along with their 5d3 purchase..."
Complainers will always be, as will those that question, explore and are fully prepared to experience the moment.
Today's necessity for instant success without effort, is like a fog that never lifts to reveal a once in a lifetime image. Nothing is seen, no wonder experienced, just frown of ignorance remains with bitterness harbored within.
This is often the result of fun and passion lost, only the drudgery of effort the harvest.
BrianO wrote:
It's not that he has a different opinion than others, it's that he flat out said that those who think the III is a step above the II are dupes who have been drugged by Canon.
Yeah, I suppose that was a bit over the top and offensive to those that love the 5D3.....
That said, I read the "stupid drug" thing to mean that Canon (like any company) would like for all of us to believe that their new product is the best thing since bottled beer and is well worth whatever they ask for it.
We have to admit that many photographers run out and buy the latest thing and rave about it like it transformed their craft as if by magic and everything before it instantly becomes junk. This is the goal of marketing and it DOES work on many people.
retrofocus wrote:
Many would do this instantly if Canon lenses could be used on Nikon bodies.....if you are vested in good Canon lenses, it is a hassle to switch. Best compromise might be to add a D800E system to the existing Canon gear with a few lenses, but then you are still limited to some degree in flexibility. Canon's 5D III is currently quite well saved by this incompatibility dilemma.
I know the cost of glass makes this hard, but if he claim the AF isn't any better than a 5D II, why torture himself. Either you take you profession seriously or don't.
Sorry, I knwo the limitations of the 5D III sensor compared to D800 and that is only a part of the differences and I still wouldn't swap even if glass weren't the issue. I have no regrets at all buying a 5D III.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I know the cost of glass makes this hard, but if he claim the AF isn't any better than a 5D II, why torture himself. Either you take you profession seriously or don't.
Sorry, I knwo the limitations of the 5D III sensor compared to D800 and that is only a part of the differences and I still wouldn't swap even if glass weren't the issue. I have no regrets at all buying a 5D III.
And I can fully understand this - it just depends on your style of shooting. If I needed a lot more high AF capability and wouldn't like to be slowed down by handling larger file sizes, the 5D III would be my choice, too. When I used the 5D III, I could really see that the AF performance and keeper rate with fast lenses was better than on my MkII. I never explored high ISO shooting on the MkIII, but I believe that it is improved also from the MkII. My point simply is that for MY personal style of photography the D800E currently would nearly be the ideal camera for me for what it technically offers and for the given price - ideal if the LiveView would be as good as in the Canon line, but I would compromise here. AF and high ISO are simply just the two areas which are not of high priority for me - nice to have, but not worth a camera upgrade for me. But I can see that for others it is the camera of choice.
Saying this, I also believe that many people buy the MkIII because it is the only new semi-professional option in Canon's current line. This is why my relative bought it, too - he wanted to upgrade to FF from his 40D, and there were only two reasonable options other than buying the older MkII version - the new 6D or the Mk III. My relative simply decided for the MkIII since he wanted to have a new developed camera system and a larger display on the back as well as the 100% viewfinder for his aging eyes. I also encouraged him to get the MkIII since waiting for a successor of the MkIII was no option.
To sum it up, I am waiting now what Canon is doing next - if Canon matches somehow the D800E without other crippling then I am good. If not, then I will just start vesting in addition into a different brand, likely in the D800E successor at the time then.
Archive 2013 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.
