Things I thought the MkIII would have but didn't: 5D-X moniker, 36Mp sensor, 100,000 pixel RGB metering of the 1D-X, QXD card slot instead of the CF one, uncompressed video output via HDMI and Thunderbolt port, 200,000 cycle shutter, focus point joystick design from 1D-X and 4K video recording capability. Now that would of been worth 3.5K to purchase!
whawha: They made it even chunkier and heavier. And more expensive. Looks like a full frame slr that doesn't look, feel and weight like a brick is still quite a long way away...
Well there is Leica's M9 series, if you can put up with a rangefinder system.
GabrielZ: Me again, as a photographer and Canon user for many years I feel like Canon just punched me in the face!
I'm really considering it!
razorfish: Why are they still clinging to the CF standard for memory, when SD cards have become more than good enough at 1/10th the size? Get rid of this obsolete tech!
Forget CF and SD, why didn't Canon incorporate the new XQD format? Near SD like compactness with superior to CF PCI-Express speeds!
They've still kept that crappy nipple for focus point control, I thought they would use the vastly improved one from the 1D-X, as this camera was released after it's pro big brother.
Me again, as a photographer and Canon user for many years I feel like Canon just punched me in the face!
What! 22 MP only!How's that going to compete with Nikon's D800? I know 36MP might be overkill for the monent considering the resolving power of current lenses. Still disappointing though. The 5D Mark II had nearly twice the resolution of the 5D, so I was at least expecting a 50% increase for the Mark III. Is this Canon admitting it's lenses aren't good enough resolution wise? Still I suppose low-light ability will eclipse the Nikon at least. An example of Canon shifting emphasis from the photographer to the videographer maybe...It's very popular with those guys I've heard.
Kai-Uwe Och: Personally I am absolutely disappointed! The D700 had been an more economic, slightly downgraded, much more compact version of Nikons pro flagship camera, but the D800 follows a completely different way. Instead of using the same sensor as the D4, which offers more than sufficient resolution, Nikon decided to build a "resolution only" camera that would hardly appeal to anybody else than landscape, wedding and portrait fotographers.
I don't need 36 megapixels (I have no wall in my flat which is large enough to really have advantages of this gigantic resolution), my computer hardware can't handle NEF files of 76.5MB, but for action photography I need up to 8f/sec! And then there is of course the lens problem, hardly any lens except of Nikons top range lenses will be able to make use of this sensor!
Maybe I should look for one of the last D700 bodies out there and store it as a backup for future use?
Sorry Nikon, no money from me for a D800!
You're absolutely right!
Bob Meyer: Nikons wording on the AA filter is very curious. They're not saying the AA filter has been removed, they're saying the "effect" of that filter has been "removed." That doesn't seem like accidental wording. I'm very curious as to what's going on here.
Maybe they mean it's removed electronically, which would imply they're charging extra for a software algorithm!
I was excited at first on reading about the new 24-70, but then realised no IS and 2 grand plus price, big disappointment,sorry.The wideangle primes are interesting though.
I'm a Canon fan and use their kit. But over the last few years it seems Canon are playing catch up to Nikon instead of leading the field like they used too. I thought Canon would be first with a 30 MP+ DSLR but Nikon beat them to it again. I imagine the 5D Mk3/5D-X will compensate with 4K video ability and the like...
"I can remember when a good quality film camera cost $2400"
Wow really? Please name that camera?
I recall the very high quality Nikon FM 2 selling for years at around £250 in the UK (around USD 500 at the time).
"You numb skulls will never except that quality craftsmanship has a price"
Come on, its going to mass produced in Japan/Thailand not carefully assembled by an artisan in a workshop somewhere in the Swiss Alps.
Ultimately the market will decide, but I'll wager that in these straightened times Fuji have got it wrong and pitched too high. There're fools. I would have gone in at a lower price to build market momentum, and establish share.
The camera market is in a state of flux and is up for grabs. There's absolutely no reason why Fuji can't be a major player, but not with pricing like this. They're being greedy and shortsighted.
The FM2's shutter was made of titanium not the camera itself. A nice bit of kit though. I believe Nikon also released an FM3 towards the end of the era of film cameras, which had some kind of hybrid electro/mechanical shutter system. I'm going to have to look it up, haven't thought of that camera in years.