jdizzle wrote in post #14987913
I'll believe when I see it. Canon hasn't been impressive with their recent offerings.
Shadowblade wrote in post #14987921
Well, there's certainly no justification in charging $3500 for a 5D3, when the D600 offers almost the same thing at two-thirds the price... and a $2000 5D2 is hardly going to compete when, for $100 more, you get a much more up-to-date camera with no banding issues.
Agreed. I can see that it's a fair argument that the 5D3 and D800 aren't better or worse than one another - they both have pros and cons that will mean one is much more suited than the other to some photographers. The extra cost of the 5D3 does sour things a little, but they still compete.
The D600 blows that out of the water. Dropping the 5D3 price closer to the D600 (and introducing a high-res body to compete with the D800) would align Canon nicely - and arguably even put them slightly ahead, given the 5D3 is on paper a bit better than the D600. However, it'd be a huge embarrassment for them to reposition the 5D3, would annoy all the guys that bought one for considerably more, and frankly, isn't going to fix the low ISO DR issues (and there's no certainty they'll even introduce a high-res body, or that it would have better DR). Introducing a cut down 5D3 to compete with the D600 looks like a loser before they've even started... I mean, what do they cut down?
Sad really, but if someone without a pile of other DSLR gear asked me for buying advice for FF bodies I'd be hard pressed to not recommend either the D600 or D800 based on their needs. The only reason I'd say 5D3 would be if they primarily shot video.