# Should I switch to a 5D MkIII?



## Chuck77 (Dec 15, 2012)

I recently bought a D600 with the 24-85 kit lens.  Been using Canon since 2007 and have $2000 invested in lenses and flashes, but wanted to try the D600 because it was so much cheaper than the 5D MK3 I had my eye on.  The problem is, I can't seem to get good money on my $2000 of perfectly good Canon gear (about 50% loss), so the real cost of the D600 is $1000 more than what I paid.

Also, I didn't like the 24-85 kit lens.. wasn't very sharp, so I sold it off last week and got pretty good money for it.  I have no Nikon lenses right now.

Now, I actually thinking of ditching the D600 for a Canon 5D MKIII because I can use all my Canon gear again.  Somehow, I wasn't as impressed by the image quality and colour of the D600 as I thought I would be.  I can get close to employee pricing on the MKIII from a friend, which makes the MKIII with 24-105 L lens only about $500 more than the D600 (considering I can still use my Canon gear).

Is it worth switching back to Canon?


----------



## jaomul (Dec 15, 2012)

Hard to call but you surely wouldn't lose to much on the sale of your d600. Canon is your obvious best choice as you have gear, but the 5d iii isnt the only ff option


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2012)

I think you're doing the math entirely incorrectly. Let's assume that the $2,000 you spent on Canon gear in 2007 was bought January 1,2007. And since it's almost the end of 2012 now, that would mean six full years of use, or 72 months of use of the Canon gear. So, you've been using $2,000 worth of Canon gear for $13.89 per month in "rental" cost. And, you will receive $1,000 in cash bonus BACK when you sell that same gear.

$2,000 worth of Canon gear bought in 2007 is now worth $1,000 on the resale market? Sounds about right. The world economy is tough right now.

You're utterly wrong that "the real cost of the D600 is $1,000 more" than what you payed for it. No. You payed $2,000 for it, and received, I hope, the promotional offer of the FREE $599 24-85 VR Nikkor zoom lens. Your cost was $2,000. And you ought to be able to use it for six years, for $13 a month. Then sell it for $1,000. After six years!


----------



## Chuck77 (Dec 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I think you're doing the math entirely incorrectly. Let's assume that the $2,000 you spent on Canon gear in 2007 was bought January 1,2007. And since it's almost the end of 2012 now, that would mean six full years of use, or 72 months of use of the Canon gear. So, you've been using $2,000 worth of Canon gear for $13.89 per month in "rental" cost. And, you will receive $1,000 in cash bonus BACK when you sell that same gear.
> 
> $2,000 worth of Canon gear bought in 2007 is now worth $1,000 on the resale market? Sounds about right. The world economy is tough right now.
> 
> You're utterly wrong that "the real cost of the D600 is $1,000 more" than what you payed for it. No. You payed $2,000 for it, and received, I hope, the promotional offer of the FREE $599 24-85 VR Nikkor zoom lens. Your cost was $2,000. And you ought to be able to use it for six years, for $13 a month. Then sell it for $1,000. After six years!



Your reasoning is probably more sound than mine, but most often lens prices go up.  It appears that this is not the case right now.  I am only getting 50% back for my 70-200 F4L/IS lens, which is not worth me selling it unfortunately!  

As for the D600, I did have my purchase price adjusted today to $2000 (+ tax) with the lens.  I sold the lens for $500, so I am keeping the body for $1500, and received a free copy of Light Room 4 too.  A phenomenal deal indeed!  I am sure I won't lose much money on the D600 if I switch to a Canon 5D Mk3, but I also won't be reaping the benefits of the unbeatable value of the D600 body  either.  For the extra money to get the 5D Mk3 ($2000 more), I can invest in a few nice lenses actually, but I won't be able to use my Canon lenses from before.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2012)

I feel similarly on lenses; after a certain point in their depreciation cycle, selling them makes less sense than keeping them as "shooters". I was just trying to get you to recognize the tremendous VALUE you have already received...a fine Canon kit for only $13.88 monthly cost, with 72 months of use. If you keep the Canon kit in total, and pile on more months of use, the per-month cost will be even more favorable for you!

The new Nikon D600 with FREE 24-85 lens, plus other perks like free monopod, or free bag + memory card, etc,etc is really quite a nice incentive!

My feeling is this: just keep the Canon body and lenses, and consider that to be a "lifetime" expense. Just move forward. Canon bodies adapt well to other-brand lenses. You already spent the money for the Canon and have a nice 70-200/4 L lens + whatever else you have for Canon...so...just KEEP it, own it, use it, and *fuggedddddaboutit!*


----------



## gsgary (Dec 15, 2012)

Why did you buy a Nikon when you have Canon lenses


----------



## Chuck77 (Dec 15, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Why did you buy a Nikon when you have Canon lenses



Because the price is amazing on the D600.  The only area the D600 loses to the 5D MkIII is the auto focus, but nothing wrong with the AF on the D600.  My rationale was this - I spent $1500 on the D600 body only, which gives me $2000 of extra head room to play with before the price is the same as the 5D MK3, which is not a better camera in the absolute sense.  I am not impressed with the Canon 6D, so it's the D600 for me...with money left over for some nice prime lenses or nice zooms!

Definitely not switching to a 5D MkIII now after getting such a good price on the D600.


----------

