Price check (Canon 5dm3)

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18973903
What you actually said was the 5D3 is a "piece of junk".

Why is it irresponsible to recommend the 5D3 today?

As for folks "defending" the 5D3, perhaps like me, they're simply wondering why you hold such a strangely hostile attitude towards a perfectly functional camera that many photogs have used to produce amazing images?

The one year I used the 5D3, its AF let me down, the short battery life, the 5FPS, poor video quality, old LCD back screen. The only upside was that it went up one stop in ISO vs the 5D2. Even in 2013, the 5D3 was a letdown.

It's irresponsible at any time to tell somebody to spend money on a six year old camera. If you already have one, then that's fine. It's obviously a very useful camera. The camera is not "trash". It is just a bad investment in 2019.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18969235
I see anything aside from the most recent cameras, as junk. Defined as, any piece of camera gear that - if you buy now - will not get your money back.

As of right now, the best camera is the Sony A7R IV, for (at this year's black friday sale) $2450. A 63 MP 10 FPS camera with excellent autofocus.

$1000 for a 5D3 is 40% of the cost, for less than 10% of the capabilities. The 5D3 is trash. The 5D3 came out at the same time as the original 7D, which costs $200, for the same performance.

I need to make sure no one spends $1000 on something like that, much less invest $1000 in something that they think they'll make $100 from.

That said, I did use the 5D3 for a year or two in 2013. And, I did spend about $2000 at the time. It was the best full frame camera until the 1DX came out.

I would probably spend only $300 on renting two 5D3's and some lenses, assuming I'll make my money back on the job - instead of putting down $5000 for the whole thing.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18973915
The one year I used the 5D3, its AF let me down, the short battery life, the 5FPS, poor video quality, old LCD back screen. The only upside was that it went up one stop in ISO vs the 5D2. Even in 2013, the 5D3 was a letdown.

It's irresponsible at any time to tell somebody to spend money on a six year old camera. If you already have one, then that's fine. It's obviously a very useful camera. The camera is not "trash". It is just a bad investment in 2019.

I'm confused. Do you think the camera is trash, or not?

BTW, in the 7+ years I have owned the 5D3, I've never had an issue with the auto focus that wasn't my fault. The battery life is fine -- I can get an entire day's usage from a single battery. It's certainly better than the battery performance I get from my much newer Canon M50 mirrorless body (btw, that camera isn't trash, either). And the back LCD has never negatively impacted my ability to take a photo.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18968874
$1000? That's crazy to spend on a piece of junk.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18973915
It's irresponsible at any time to tell somebody to spend money on a six year old camera. If you already have one, then that's fine. It's obviously a very useful camera. The camera is not "trash". It is just a bad investment in 2019.

.
You say that the 5D3 is a "piece of junk", then you say that the 5D3 is "not trash".

I have a difficult understanding what you really think of the 5D3. . Are you one of those people who will overstate your opinion at times, in order to make a more impactful statement than is really called for? . Is that what you did in post #13 ?

.

I wouldn't buy a 5D3 today for $1000.

I certainly wouldn't hire anyone to photograph anything for me if they were using one either.

Either you guys don't know the value of money and irresponsibly telling people to buy trash with the hard earned dollar, or you are in denial of how useful the newer cameras are in the last six years.

The 5D3 became irrelevant as soon as the 1DX came out. Even an 80D is better than the 5D3. The 7DII, twice the camera. 5D4, 90D, EOS R, 6D II. If you keep arguing, you might miss out on another generation of cameras.

Please stop telling people to buy a 5D3. If a starting photographer and took your advice on spending "ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" in 2019 on a camera that came out in 2013, they would not be happy.

Do you understand how much $1000 is? It is a lot of money. It is money that people work very hard for.

Do you know how many cameras came out since 2013 that are better purchases than the 5D3?

90D
80D
6D Mark II
1DX
1D Mark IV
Nikon D850
Nikon D800
Nikon D750
Leica V-Lux 4
Leica V-Lux 5
1D Mark III
7D
7D II
Sony A7 II
Sony A7R II
Sony A7 R III
EOS R
Nikon Z6
Sony A9
Canon 1DX Mark II
Sony A7 R IV
Nikon D5
Nikon D4s
Nikon Z7
Leica M10
Leica SL
Leica SL2
Leica CL
Hasselblad H6D-50c
Hasselblad H6D-100
5D Mark IV
Fujifilm XT2
Fujifilm XT3
Fujifilm X Pro 2
Fujifilm X Pro 3
Olympus EM 1 X
Fujifilm 50 S
Fujifilm 50R
Fujifilm 100
Hasselblad X1D
Leica Q
Leica Q2
Panasonic S1
Panasonic S1R
Panasonic S1H
Hasselblad H5D-40
Hasselblad H5D-50
Hasselblad H5D-50c
Hasselblad H5D-60
Sony A9
Sony A9 II
Hasselblad X1D
Hasselblad X1D II

.
CH Devin,

Please explain why you called the 5D3 a "piece of junk" in post #13, but said it was "not trash" in post #31. . These two statements of yours seem to contradict each other, so I think an explanation is in order.

Also, no one here suggested that anyone should pay $1000 for a 5D3. You keep going off about this, yet you have created a straw man that you are arguing against, because NO ONE recommended that the OP pay that much for a 5D3. . You do get this, don't you? (that is not a rhetorical and I am asking you for an answer)


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18974100
.
CH Devin,

Please explain why you called the 5D3 a "piece of junk" in post #13, but said it was "not trash" in post #31. . These two statements of yours seem to contradict each other, so I think an explanation is in order.

Also, no one here suggested that anyone should pay $1000 for a 5D3. You keep going off about this, yet you have created a straw man that you are arguing against, because NO ONE recommended that the OP pay that much for a 5D3. . You do get this, don't you? (that is not a rhetorical and I am asking you for an answer)


.

The 5D3 is trash because it is slow, takes small pictures, and has a small viewfinder.

I can settle for something that is slow that takes big pictures, like the 5DsR - or something fast that takes small pictures like the 1D.

Trash, unreliable . Take it indoor without a flash and you lose the ability to photograph. Take it to a sports game and not get a single action photo.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18974104
The 5D3 is trash ... Take it to a sports game and not get a single action photo.

OK. It's clear you're just being a troll, but I'll play along

That sports scenario you chose shows me that the problem is YOU, not the camera, because I have shot motor sports of all kinds with a 5D3 for years, with excellent results and perfect reliability.

I love my 5D3, but then again, I've been happy with all my cameras - haven't had any 'trash' yet.

OK, your turn.

This is fun!

CH_Devin wrote in post #18974104
The 5D3 is trash because it is slow, takes small pictures, and has a small viewfinder.

I can settle for something that is slow that takes big pictures, like the 5DsR - or something fast that takes small pictures like the 1D.

Trash, unreliable . Take it indoor without a flash and you lose the ability to photograph. Take it to a sports game and not get a single action photo.

.
But in post #31 you said it was "not trash".

You say it is trash then you say it is not trash then you say it is trash.

I have asked you twice to clear up the apparent self-contradiction. . You have responded twice, but neither time did you address the apparent contradiction and explain it.

I am asking you again to explain why you said it was not trash the one time, but that it is trash the other times. . We need to be accountable for everything we say, and not talk in circles when asked to explain apparent contradictions.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18974186
.
But in post #31 you said it was "not trash".

You say it is trash then you say it is not trash then you say it is trash.

I have asked you twice to clear up the apparent self-contradiction. . You have responded twice, but neither time did you address the apparent contradiction and explain it.

I am asking you again to explain why you said it was not trash the one time, but that it is trash the other times. . We need to be accountable for everything we say, and not talk in circles when asked to explain apparent contradictions.

.

I mean, I could see why it could and couldn't be trash. One person's trash is another person's treasure. I understand both sides of the argument. So far, my vote is closer to 5-1 whether or not it is or not. The one vote to it not being trash is swayed by interfering crowd noise.

How is a body varial going to be photographed on Motorcross with a 5D3? You might have to get only one shot and time it well. What about the tricks where you need to get a sequential? Wouldn't you need more than 5FPS?

.
You grossly misspeak.

You must not see things as black or white, yes or no, etc. . Everything in life is a great and deep series of gray layers. . There is no black and there is no white. . Everything "depends".

Just because a camera model may suck at a certain type of photography does not mean it is trash. Just because something is useless to you does not mean it is useless to others. . Your perspective does not matter to anyone other than yourself. . No one person's perspective matters when making an absolute and blanket statement as the the usefulness of a particular model of camera body.

There are many cameras that are completely useless to me and the type of photography that I do ..... but these cameras are not "trash" at all. They are very useful for other types of photography, and a good person with viable communication skills will acknowledge that the camera is "good at some things, but not for what I shoot."

There are many types of photography in which good autofocus is not necessary (or even useful), for which a high frame rate is not useful, for which high ISOs are not necessary (or even useful), and for which large file sizes with a lot of detail resolution is not useful. I think the 5D3 is very well suited for all of these types of photography.

.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18974189
How is a body varial going to be photographed on Motorcross with a 5D3? You might have to get only one shot and time it well. What about the tricks where you need to get a sequential? Wouldn't you need more than 5FPS?

You would only need more than 5FPS if you wanted your sequential to have images spaced closer together than 1/5 second intervals. If you wanted a 5FPS sequential of motocross action, you could take one and get the bike in the frame in every shot if you zoomed out wide and shot from far back, so that the bike was small in the frame.

If you want a different type of sequential with a more close-up look, then the 5D3 would not be the right camera for that type of photography. That certainly doesn't make it trash ... it just means that it is better suited for other things, such as stationary subjects in good ambient light in which one does not need great detail resolution.

.

It seems that, in future, before saying an image is fantastic, I should check what sort of camera and lens was used, just in case it was taken with a 5D3. How embarrassing would THAT be?

I might have mistakenly labelled an image as good, then realised it was taken with trash gear. My reputation would be rooned!

This could of course be applied to many gear freaks, who as soon as new technology hits the market, immediately describe everything that came before it as rubbish.

Disclaimer: this post was typed on a 2017 iMac 21.5" with only 8mb RAM and an old-style 4K monitor, so you can dismiss it as rubbish.

Also, I am a 1956 model myself, so ...

CH_Devin wrote in post #18974078
I wouldn't buy a 5D3 today for $1000.

I certainly wouldn't hire anyone to photograph anything for me if they were using one either.

Either you guys don't know the value of money and irresponsibly telling people to buy trash with the hard earned dollar, or you are in denial of how useful the newer cameras are in the last six years.

The 5D3 became irrelevant as soon as the 1DX came out. Even an 80D is better than the 5D3. The 7DII, twice the camera. 5D4, 90D, EOS R, 6D II. If you keep arguing, you might miss out on another generation of cameras.

You obviously have no clue about the professional photography business. Most professionals cannot afford the latest and greatest gear. It would not be surprising to see a pro using a 5D3, nor should anyone have any qualms about hiring a pro using such equipment. A good photographer will produce great results with just about any equipment. A lousy photographer can have the latest, most expensive equipment on the market and still produce trash results (I used the term "trash", since you seem to like it).

The most important piece of equipment is the one attached to the viewfinder -- i.e. the actual photographer. Ansel Adams could create a masterpiece with a pinhole camera. Someone with no skills would produce garbage with one of the Hasselblad's in your list.

CH_Devin wrote in post #18974104
The 5D3 is trash because it is slow, takes small pictures, and has a small viewfinder.

I can settle for something that is slow that takes big pictures, like the 5DsR - or something fast that takes small pictures like the 1D.

Trash, unreliable . Take it indoor without a flash and you lose the ability to photograph. Take it to a sports game and not get a single action photo.

What in the heck do you mean by "takes small pictures"? I have enlargements up to 36x24 hanging on our walls taken with a 5D3 that look wonderful, and wouldn't hesitate to print larger if I had a wall big enough for something larger.

Scott M wrote in post #18975870
.
You obviously have no clue about the professional photography business. Most professionals cannot afford the latest and greatest gear. It would not be surprising to see a pro using a 5D3, nor should anyone have any qualms about hiring a pro using such equipment.
.

.
You are right on the money with that statement.

The top pro photographer in my area is still using a pair of Fugi crop sensor DSLRs that he got back in 2003. Hasn't had any need to upgrade yet.

A friend of mine has a very successful commercial photography business in Spokane, and he uses a pair of Canon 5D Mark 2 bodies. Because he does all commercial work, where he sets everything up in his studio or sets up lighting if he is shooting a location, he has no need for anything newer or better. His 5D2 bodies completely satisfy the needs of his clientele.

Anyone who puts a huge emphasis on having current top-shelf gear probably knows very little about photography as a profession.

.