I wonder how much of the $8,000 price tag goes toward the materials needed to build the camera and how much goes toward for the buyer's need to feel special.
NDT0001: So many hateful comments by anonymous fools who think their opinion is the only only one that counts in their tiny world. Trashing a specialist/niche camera is akin to saying a ferrari is just a car, a rolex is just a watch and therefore, way to expensive!!!
Believe it or not, some people actually see the intrinsic value in such a specialty piece of equipment, be it due to form, function or merely concept, and if you cant or dont want to afford it, well guess what? YOUR NOT THE TARGET MARKET.
Not being able to personally justify the expense is no excuse to rubbish a specialty high-end product. Been to a big city lately? Designer/luxury brand stores are THRIVING.
Some people actually think differently to you.
AbrasiveReducer: Since ownership of Canon or Nikon lenses doesn't seem to be a consideration (why even comment on a camera that you have no intent to buy since you have no lenses for it) I have concluded that the 5D mk III and D800 are both very good cameras but the Nikon is twice as good a value. D800 = 36mp for $3000. That's just $83 per megapixel. 5D mk III = 22mp for $3500. That's $159 per megapixel. Even if you have some of the better Canon lenses, ones that Nikon has no equivalent for, it makes sense to switch brands since you will make up the savings over time in megapixels.
Just because a camera has more megapixels, does not mean its a better camera. As a matter of fact, the more megapixels you pack onto a sensor of any given size, the more image quality degrades.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Marksphoto: I can make better pictures with film and if I were a hobbyist I wouldn't even bother with digital photography. Who would want to have the same crap on their hard drives as the other million photographers do?
if you want to stand out upgrade yourself a Canon Elan for pennies on ebay and your photos will look so much better than anything digital can offer and if you have the extra $2000 to burn get yourself a decent film scanner like I did. Even scanned film is preferred to my 5D Mark2 files when shot side by side, I won't even comment how much better the prints look overall.
If you are a wedding photographer and shoot thousands of photos than an upgrade to mark3 maybe worth it to you. The rest are just equipment junkies and not photographers
Right. I guess that why most professional photographers use film cameras...wait....
mbot: The Canon 60D and 7D replacement with all the latest advancements will be much better value for money.
But the Pentax K5 replacement will match the 5D mkIII every step of the way plus improve on it, at half the price...The K5 already has a big bright 100% viewfinder, top-notch autofocus all with cross-hair focus points, full weather sealing, excellent battery-life, 7fps shooting, and even RAW development that can save as TIFF files all onboard.
Any improvements to the K5 including QDX memory cards and all the same video features as the 5D mkIII, manual level audio control (which the recently announced Pentak K-01 already has), headphone socket, external mic etc will simply make any buyers of the 5D mkIII a fashion victim, who is either stupid, or has more money than brains, unless of course they have already invested thousands of dollars in Canon lenses.
The 5D mkIII has no adjustable LCD and is stuck trying not to undermine the 1DX, very sad, Sorry, please leave the room 5D mkIII.
When you buy a camera, you're not just buying the camera; you're buying into a camera system. Pentax just does not have accessories that Canon or Nikon do.
I'd like to know how packing 36 megapixels onto a FF sensor will effect low light performance and image sharpness (as having too many pixels on too small a sensor can make images mushy).
Mssimo: No USB 3.0? Would be nice to use with new XQD card.
It seems to me, pulling a card out of a camera and putting it into a card reader would increase the chance of some sort of corruption happening.
larrytusaz: Price aside, this here is exhibit A in why d-SLRs shouldn't have video. Cameras like this prove it: the equipment for video already exists, with large sensors mind you, & we photographers would like our still imaging devices left ALONE. You don't hear me complaining about how this thing apparently can't take good photos, or that the ergonomics of it don't suit that task. What business is that of mine? This device is for VIDEO & I respect that boundary, if only videographers would understand the same thing per our d-SLRs.
I applaud this. I don't advocate that Canon can't make good video cameras & still cameras, and printers too, but a device should know its place & STAY there. I buy d-SLRs for images, not YouTube clips.
I can't imagine why anyone would complain about a excellent dSLR that also has the ability to do video. Video does not detract from the still capabilities. Its a add-on that's there if you want it.