I'm glad the 5D Mark III will cost so much..
...because this should bring a lot of nice Canon gear to the used market as everyone jumps to Nikon. Then, when Canon leap frogs Nikon with the next camera I can make a killing selling it all back when the recent Nikon converts come running back:-)
Sorry, not trying to be a jerk. But there are way to many threads going complaining about what the 5D Mark III "isn't" and what the D800 "is" that it's making my head spin. Won't argue that the $3499 body price does seem a bit steep (particularly compared to the D800 suggested price). But how can anyone honestly make a decision to dump thousands of dollars in gear based on what at this point is just cameras on paper. I mean, none of us have even touched a D800 or Mark III yet. For all we know when they hit the streets we might just find that Canon hit the nail on the head and Nikon reached out to far. My guess is they will both be great cameras that will sell just fine. Remember the Nikon D100? The first "affordable" DSLR. A 6MP camera in a body that was cheaper built than any manufacturers current entry model camera. It was $2,000 when it came out. People said it would never sell. Well, it sold so well it helped start the rush of photographers into digital. How about the 7D? Close to $2,000 when it came out. Many said the price was to close to the price of a full frame so no one will buy it. Near as I can tell, 7D sales have been pretty good for Canon.
As for me, I won't be buying the Mark III but not because of price or "what it isn't". But simple because I have a perfectly good 7D that does what I need. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like one though:-)