not quite over $500...

MSRP $490.. :what:

you were awake earlier when i started posting it :shrug:

I'm shocked. The video features are extremely lacking compared to the d4/d800

I figured it would raise the bar again...but not at all...didn't even balance he playing field. And for the price...

They are banking on canon loyalists at this point.

high ISO samples.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...ht-iso-samples

ISO 51200

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/5B56BE703...E50BECC18C.jpg

Seems all they did was get rid of a eight year old auto focus.

The sensor is different, they went gapless. Iirc the 5D2 was not.

600 bux for that flash too...

Seems like they overpriced everything.

A 580ex2 is what 450? Get that and a pocket wizard and the cost is the same :shrug:

superficial changes, they are.

Ugh. They've flipped their lids with pricing. Seriously considering throwing in the Canon towel...

the D800 is looking mighty fine now....... only thing is I'd have to get new lenses.... and a flash... lol.. :bored:

Thinner/not as strong AA filter?

And thats where canon is going to keep customers...same as nikon.

Once you get invested in a system, its hard to dump everything and switch and not be out some cash for it.

But if you're just starting out (Ok maybe you're not spending 3k if you're just starting but still) Why would they price it so high compared to the competition? I'm at a loss for words on that price. At 3K you can make a case...but up here its $800 more than a D800 :what:

I'm thinking maybe they'll be offering a cheaper FF that will slot in a $2-2.5K but with what specs? The Specs of the III are at most a 3K camera.

Wait $800 more? I thought they wanted 3500...they are asking 3800!?!?!?!

Well...they are truly off their rocker if thats the reality of it...

Someone is gonna get fired over that.

body vs body I see the the mkIII being only $500 more.

Still...you don't get anything extra for that $500...at all.

I've been reading reviews & Q&A from Jeff Ascough ( :bow: ) and it's killing me. I really, really want one, but the price is unreasonable. And the prices on the new flash & transmitter? :ugh: I'll keep my 580 II's and invest in RP's.

5D3 + grip + flash = $4700 or so... I think this also makes the 1DX look more appealing!

Yeah, the grip price is out of this world too high. Thankfully, I've never used one, and probably never will.

Ascough says the tsunami and the value of the yen are factors influencing the high price. It's understandable, but I still think they'd do much, much better to knock it below $3k. They'd compensate for the lower price with higher volume. I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger at the lower price point. As it is, I'm considering picking up a used Mk II. I'll have to think about it, and wait for more hands-on reviews.

I don't have any weddings to shoot until June, so I have some time, but I'll want a couple of months with whatever I pick up to learn its ins & outs. I'm very happy with the 7Ds for portraits. Decisions decisions...

gee, can you make it any more obvious??

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....ckmastercl.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...l/4f0dc9a7.jpg

I don't either considering the cost of the D800.

Though the D4 is a $1000 increase over the price of the D3(s)

And just to make people not feel SO bad about the handgrip...I think I remember reading the handgrip for the D800 is also $500 :ugh:

There are some very unimpressed Canon shooters regarding the announcement

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=40771174

Reading from his blog?



I love how he is "bashing" those talking about dpreview.



Also pricing here is HIGH, what they price in dollars here, just use those same number in British Pounds for England.

:chuckle: It's long been known that Nikon blows Canon out of the water with its native flash system...

Link?

His blog is pretty void of anything...unless he has another one.

This is what I was reading

http://blog.jeffascough.com/photogra...ii-review.html

:canada: Its $3,799

Our pricing has been close to ($50-100 more) the US for some time now but this is $300 more for some reason. D800 is $2,999 CAD.

I was referring to the design.. :bored:

No, reading on the DWF.

That it's the same? That's what I meant...that they have a reason to blatantly copy. ;)

Well...I kinda agree with him on Dpreview...99% of the people making posts there are idiots.

And its OBVIOUS this guy is deep in Canon's pockets. His blog/review sounded more like a paid advertisement than anything else.

And in his comments (which he shut down because I don't think he can deal with the criticism.)

The first guy to mention Nikon was immediately dismissed, and his question on why would choose this over the D800 was completely ignored.

This guy obviously has a very high rep as a wedding shooter...but all I see is arrogant puts being paid by Canon.

Well, all I can say for you guys is ooooooch.

Yes, he is in Canon's pockets - no doubt. He apparently gave a fair amount of input into its features (according to him). I love, love, love his photography..could take or leave the rest.

I can't say his comments are fair and balanced, just that his review and discussion on the DWF make me want one. He's been very open that he doesn't use Nikon and isn't comparing the MkIII to any of Nikon's lineup..only to other Canon bodies, including the 1DX and former 5D versions. As heavily invested in Canon gear as I am, switching formats would be a huge decision and undertaking, so I'm looking at this very closely.

oh ok. yeah, its a blatant design copy.

And no, I can't disagree with his comments about dpreview users. Trying to sort objective and useful information from the chest-beating, fanboy blowhards is a waste of time.

people are spewing all sorts of garbage about this camera everywhere. I'll reserve judgment until I see real-world photos from real-world photographers.

Sorry..I posted my comment too soon the first time when I had to answer the phone.

:ugh: It's the same every time a new body is released from either side. It's so frustrating. If it's made by any company other than what Joe-Blow-poster shoots with, it's crap, and vice versa.

its not even that.

most of them are so uneducated in what they are claiming to talk about its not even funny.

The comments about mirror less cameras to DSLRs to iPhones (because DPreview.com itself is SOOOOO Apple bias :rolleyes: )...I don't know what I ever bother to peruse the comments...sometimes they make me laugh, half the time I wish Darwin would show up at their homes and put two in their chests and one in the heads.

As it stands alone...I'm sure its a great camera.

But when you compare it to whats its replacing...and what the competition is offering...its a sad state.

As one of my friends who has been drooling for this camera to be announced said, "Its two years behind the curve, way to go Canon."

I gotta agree with him.

They could have released this body 1 year ago, and called it the 5DmkIIs and it would have been a hit.

Today...not so much.

There will always going to be haters within each brand. Kinda like how it is here with Acura :D

Well...much like Acura...Canon just stepped back into the proverbial stone age.

I don't think this camera is 'stone age' material...

compared to the competition they are.

Phenomenal high iso/low light shoot...its about time for you guys...Nikon won that market (and still win it ala D4) for the last two years.

What else...the autofocus. Thats really nice.

But really...thats kinda it when you boil it down the complete basics.

the 5D2 was on par with the D700.

we are not talking about the D3 and D4 here.

I don't either. It actually looks like a fantastic camera. But at more than double the cost of the 7D, I have a hard time justifying the expense. Is it really $2K more camera than the 7D? The most compelling pieces for me are the dual card slots, the full frame sensor, the high ISO performance, and the autofocus.

I'm not sure I want or need any of those features enough to justify the expense. It's not like the MkII is a dud. People make gorgeous images with them. That may be the best route for me.

I wanted this camera, but at $3500... :dunno:

I would've gotten the 5D2, but I enjoy the higher end features of the 1D that the 5D lacked.

The 3 thou has most of them that I like. So :shrug:

No it wasn't. The 5D2 was just the 5D with a bigger sensor.

But we can, because the D700 and the D3 shot pretty much the same when it comes to ISO.

The 5D2 is good, I never jabbed it...but it doesn't touch the D700 in low light.

And for fuck's sake, I wish I could buy an excellent DSLR without paying for the video capabilities. I still hate that. I'm not a videographer. I wish they'd make video optional and cut the price for those of us who don't want it.

Fixed

The 1DX will need a flash too...

All things the competition had 2 years ago. Which is why I say stone age. And for a higher price tag.

Canon...the Honda/Toyota of the camera world...attempting to rest on its laurels rather than innovate and push the envelope.

I honestly don't believe you are paying extra for video anymore. The prices of these bodies would be the same regardless at this point in time.

Yea I mentioned last night how similar the two look.

You are completely wrong. The dynamic range, white balance, and shadow/highlight reproduction of the 5D2 is on the same level as the D700. The 5D is a dinosaur compared to the 5D2, when it comes to those areas.