Ah now it includes tax alright. What he's talking about is the import tax you'd pay if you bought from the states. That's why he mentioned the warranty being void over here etc. basically if you were in the US it's cheaper to buy this than it is over here.
You just wanted to know why the list price is different. And as of yet nobody can give a rational explanation for it. If you walked into a us store you'd pay$3500 and that would include tax undoubtedly.
Sales tax (9% approx) is added if you buy instore, bought my 1dmk3 there and on import paid the vat and still saved €1500 on the purchase price in Ireland.
by whom, though?
there are three main benificiaries of the money you spend when you buy a camera here - retailer, supplier, and government. it may not be the shop's fault.
i was once told in a shop that an item i wanted to buy cost less in an irish online retail store than the wholesaler charged the shop at wholesale prices. there are massive discounts available to outlets who buy in bulk, making life difficult for the small outlets.
Not only u get taxed in the store but also at the airport
Sales tax in the US depends on where you buy, and differs from state to state. So, if you buy in B&H instore, you pay 4%, but if you buy B&W online, and ship to say .... Oregon, you pay 0% sales tax.
Some rates from 2011, but most are the same in 2012.
There can also be local taxes too, as well as state tax.
Prices for Canon and Nikon are set by the company. Then you add VAT and local shop profit and you get the end price. Over the last few years, companies are trying to have base prices and then convert to local currency without too much change, and then you just add the tax and markup.
Moving slightly off the financial side of things.
Is this camera really a breakthrough for stills photographers?
Will this produce better and more striking images than the 5dMk2 in terms of colour, contrast and clarity?
If we didnt care about video at all, are we seeing a vast improvement here? Or is the reason the 5Dmk2 is being kept around an indication that the MK2 is just as good for stills as the 5Dmk3? Negating the additional autofocus points (I use 1, the middle one)
A lot of the changes were geared towards making it a great camera for wedding photographers. They had a lot of input from pros as to what they'd like to see included.
Hence, for example, higher usable ISO and much improved focussing - but similar megapixels.
So what ya mean is, it's better for photo journalistic styles?
Well, obviously, not just photojournalistic - but a lot of the changes will be very useful for me.
Regarding IQ - that's a bit subjective - but once again early reports seem to say the images look even better than from the Mk II. The High-ISO samples on DPreview were also pretty impressive - given that they used low tungsten light for them (not always the case in tests).
That is of course assuming you would be using a high ISO. I dont think I have a shot over iso 200 with everything I shot this past year on my 60D. But I guess thats where the wedding folks need to extra light.
So anything really tangible other than the stuff for sports, photojournalists? I hate to see an explanation that its better for "wedding photographers". Which basically means, its good for when people are walking around
I think what I've been most puzzled by this past few weeks has been how outstanding the fuji x100 has been. I can get high quality images with great sharpness and rich colours and a great perspective. The ISO is nicely composed and it works shockingly well given its limitations.
I know the 5dmk2 is going to be so much better with that dslr style snappy auto focus. I just wonder is the money really worth it. Or are we looking at a camera that's bragging rights lie in it's video options and quality?
It seems to be all video samples that are doing the rounds. Do as many people really care about it's images this time around or has the dslr market been balanced out by video makers as much as it has by photographers?
**edit* Looked at the samples over on the canon site. To be fair, ISO 6400 looks fairly incredible! But shooting a bride with a 50mm lens at f 7.1 could have been stopped down to 4/5 and iso down two steps to get just as striking an image.
Still it's very impressive!
it's a few percentages here, a few percentages there. it does everything a bit better, but i think it's fair to say that it won't allow you to do something its predecessor (or similar) could not manage. so no, not a breakthrough.
5D MKII is still a great camera for still images and I can't justify all that extra € for the MKIII ... I heard it's more geared for video, and the images are a bit smoothed out looking - but this could be sh*te, read it on other forums.
interesting to see the dpreview full review in a few months and the price in about a year !!
Just to put some detail on it from my POV, the following 3 things are enough to make an upgrade worthwhile for me :
(1) New focus system & modes
(2) Dual card slots
(3) High ISO performance (estimated 2-4 stops better than MKII for equivalent quality).
Plus all the other little improvements + nice to have things.
Now, if you're a landscape photographer, it's unlikely these would mean as much to you. So - it's not for everyone, and the MK II will continue to be sold, at a lower price (than now).
wished i had the £££ to buy this cam
So basically if your a fashion/studio/landscape/commercial photog, than none of this really means that much.
The primary additions are for things that move in dark places!
pfft....my mark 2 and 24-70 arrive tomorrow!