George.ML wrote:
Agree.
But look at the specs. I'm very curious - is this really what the 'affordable FF' crowd is hoping/wishing for?
I mean a small (plastic?) FF body with 3 fps ?
henryng wrote:
Canon is very good selling you very little improvement for a lot of cash.
Seriously, this is, ahem, questionable. My 5D2's cost me no more than my 5D's did. The list of improvements is considerable. 8 extra Mpixels, much higher isos, Liveview, much better monitor, dust shaker, 1080p, contrast-detect and face-detect focussing, and best of all, 3 C-modes. It's a hella more camera for the same price. I got a pair of fresh shutters and more than half my money back for my 5D's. From where I'm sitting Canon is selling me big improvements for very reasonable money. Next time round I want a great evf and lightning fast face-detect focussing for stills and video. But whatever the 5D3 includes, I am confident that Canon will improve it while keeping the price acceptable.
brainiac wrote:
From where I'm sitting Canon is selling me big improvements for very reasonable money.
Yep, likewise the 30D-40D step: but because a lot of the improvements are under the skin, rather than shiny bells and whistles ("Ooh! Look at all the pretty lights and buttons!"), people ignore them.
Sad really that gimmicks, glitz and on paper improvements (which invariably fail to impress "in the flesh") count for for more with some people than what actually produces good images...
brainiac wrote:
Seriously, this is, ahem, questionable. My 5D2's cost me no more than my 5D's did. The list of improvements is considerable.
Sure, the company that used software to handicap the original rebel so they could sell the the same thing in a better case as the 10d for 67% more would never do such a thing!
Let's be serious here. Canon is giving you as little as they believe they can for the price they are charging. That is what their stakeholders demand of them.
At the same time they are taking the same substantial margins on the 5d2 that they took on the 5d that you helped make so profitable for them.
skibum5 wrote:
i didn't say it was a waste or that it WAS an XTi I said it was a Rebel WITH A FF SENSOR.
and it is body performance-wise in many respects.
3fps, longgg mirror blackout, long (compared to top DSLR) shutter delay
granted the AF was better and the bod specs are mostly a TAD above rebels, but below, to far below xxD or 1 series.
you can't seriously claim the 5D was a high spec body can you? other than in terms of the sensor
actually yes I would. The 5d was/is still a better camera to hold in your hands, it had much better high iso capabilities, better controls than the rebel, and the rebels felt like something from toys r us.
nads wrote:
Sure, the company that used software to handicap the original rebel so they could sell the the same thing in a better case as the 10d for 67% more would never do such a thing!
Let's be serious here. Canon is giving you as little as they believe they can for the price they are charging. That is what their stakeholders demand of them.
At the same time they are taking the same substantial margins on the 5d2 that they took on the 5d that you helped make so profitable for them.
The 5D was $3299 at launch and the superior in just about every way 5D II is $2699. That's not bad going IMO. The 5D II was hardly a minor upgrade of the 5D, only the AF wasn't touched.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The 5D was $3299 at launch and the superior in just about every way 5D II is $2699. That's not bad going IMO. The 5D II was hardly a minor upgrade of the 5D, only the AF wasn't touched.
I said it was the smallest upgrade they believed they could get away with. The 5d was only $3299 for the suckers that paid for one in the first 90 days so that statement is not only a red herring, but it demonstrates how Canon likes to extract every ounce of consumer surplus they can.
When the 5d2 + 24-105 sells for 2700, their margins will again be reasonable. Of course their 'wii' strategy of maintaining a shortage is designed to delay that from happening for the longest amount of time possible.
5D quickly dropped in price and had a flex-price really. Total gouging and obviously no competition except 1Ds at $8k.
i think most people, if they honestly evaluate the situation would agree with nads .. that Canon did the smallest upgrade they believed they could get away with
that is not a conspiracy or evil, sadly just a business tactic for an established leader looking to protect profit & future revenue.
which is why we need Nikon & Sony to exert PRESSURE on canon.
Do the math quickly.
50D sells for $1150 from authorized dealers
5D2 sells for $2700 from authorized dealers
* same warranty & support level (ie. liability to canon & dealers)
* both CPS (USA) eligible for repairs
Is anyone that DENSE to think the 5D has $1650 MORE in PARTS than the 50D.
ROTFLMAO.
nads wrote:
I said it was the smallest upgrade they believed they could get away with. The 5d was only $3299 for the suckers that paid for one in the first 90 days so that statement is not only a red herring, but it demonstrates how Canon likes to extract every ounce of consumer surplus they can.
When the 5d2 + 24-105 sells for 2700, their margins will again be reasonable. Of course their 'wii' strategy of maintaining a shortage is designed to delay that from happening for the longest amount of time possible.
Glen_C wrote:
Do the math quickly.
50D sells for $1150 from authorized dealers
5D2 sells for $2700 from authorized dealers
Is anyone that DENSE to think the 5D has $1650 MORE in PARTS than the 50D.
ROTFLMAO.
Er, I wonder if Canon had to, like, invest stuff, like, you know, money, in order to work out how to produce those fancy sensor thingies. Maybe that, like, affects the, like, price. Dude.
Seriously, if you think the parts are what you are paying for, you need to stop doing the math so quickly, and start thinking about how Canon et alia carry out the manufacturing of industry-leading technology designs using in-house research. It costs a lot of money to develop custom semiconductor devices. Canon is not a charity. They have invested heavily and they want to see profit. I hand over my money willingly for the state-of-the-art EOS cameras and lenses. When a cheaper or better system comes along I might start using that. Is anyone that dense to think that the cost of any of these cameras is a linear function of the cost of production of the parts? ROTFLMAO
looks like a very very nice upgrade if that box photo is real..one thing what does the icon mean that shows the camera body rolling back and forth? In body IS?
Glen_C wrote:
5D quickly dropped in price and had a flex-price really. Total gouging and obviously no competition except 1Ds at $8k.
i think most people, if they honestly evaluate the situation would agree with nads .. that Canon did the smallest upgrade they believed they could get away with
that is not a conspiracy or evil, sadly just a business tactic for an established leader looking to protect profit & future revenue.
which is why we need Nikon & Sony to exert PRESSURE on canon.
Do the math quickly.
50D sells for $1150 from authorized dealers
5D2 sells for $2700 from authorized dealers
* same warranty & support level (ie. liability to canon & dealers)
* both CPS (USA) eligible for repairs
Is anyone that DENSE to think the 5D has $1650 MORE in PARTS than the 50D.
A 1D3 AND a 5D2 (with FF sensor) is still cheaper than one 1Ds3. The sensor is pretty much the same, yet the 1Ds3 costs more, and gives up the APS-H sensor in the process
abam wrote: "Canon is the only one that makes fast prime."
"did nikon go under while i was away?"
"No.......... but Nikon don't have f1.2 on their current line-up..........."
no offense, but i'm not sure that that last sentence is really an argument against saying that nikon makes fast primes.
By fast I don't mean the fastest possible prime. I mean, with canon, you can buy fast prime with USM focusing for reasonable price (like the 28 f1.8, 85 f1.8 and 100 f2). Nikon makes fast prime too, but they tends to be slightly slower (most of them are f2.8) or more expensive (Nikon 105mm f2 costs over $1000).
I'm no expert in Nikon lenses so I might be wrong.
Anyway, both the Nikon and Canon systems are good. I hope with time the Sony system will catch up. I'm definitely tempted to switch to Sony, if they bring out a cheap 35mm f2.
05xrunner wrote:
looks like a very very nice upgrade if that box photo is real..one thing what does the icon mean that shows the camera body rolling back and forth? In body IS?
doubt it. probably it shows you in the VF if you are level or not
