canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => Deals on Gear => Topic started by: Canon Rumors on December 03, 2012, 08:50:35 AM

Title: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Canon Rumors on December 03, 2012, 08:50:35 AM

Unofficial Price Drop?

It seems B&H Photo, Adorama and Amazon have all dropped the price of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III body to $2999. You can see the price if you add to cart at all 3 stores.


EOS 5D Mark III $2999 at Amazon | B&H Photo | Adorama


It looks like the lawyers have figured out a way to skirt the terms of MMAP pricing. :)


cr


Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: vlim on December 03, 2012, 08:58:27 AM
Does it mean we can expect a little drop on the european market ? In France it's been a long time that the price of 5D mark III is at 2999 €
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: JBL on December 03, 2012, 09:00:32 AM
Your post is already out of date.

Prices have moved at Adorama.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: CTJohn on December 03, 2012, 09:03:52 AM
If you add to cart, Adorama still shows lower price.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: albron00 on December 03, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
In France you walk in the store and get one for 2809 EUR at Ubaldi:
http://www.ubaldi.com/photo-video/appareil-photo-numerique/reflex/canon/appareil-photo-numerique-reflex-canon--eos-5d-mark-iii-boitier-nu--120738.php (http://www.ubaldi.com/photo-video/appareil-photo-numerique/reflex/canon/appareil-photo-numerique-reflex-canon--eos-5d-mark-iii-boitier-nu--120738.php)
or at Boulanger for 2849 EUR:
 http://www.boulanger.fr/reflex_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii_nu/p_42902_475024.htm (http://www.boulanger.fr/reflex_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii_nu/p_42902_475024.htm)

Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Craig Richardson on December 03, 2012, 11:06:15 AM
Canadian retailers are charging upwards of $400 more than having the camera shipped from the USA taxes and duties paid.  When I go into Henry's it is a ghost town and they are carrying vary little high end stock.  To compound this B&H sends their large, phone book size, print catalog to all houses in my area (Markham Ontario).
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Axilrod on December 03, 2012, 11:44:36 AM
I'm curious what people think of the Mark III now.  Most of the initial backlash was price-related, so what does everyone think now comparing the 5D3 to D800?  Especially if you're comparing it at the $2499 price that alot of people got recently.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Random Orbits on December 03, 2012, 12:17:22 PM
I'm curious what people think of the Mark III now.  Most of the initial backlash was price-related, so what does everyone think now comparing the 5D3 to D800?  Especially if you're comparing it at the $2499 price that alot of people got recently.

Got mine through the 2500 promotion, and I love it.  Adds a stop or more at high ISOs and the AF is great compared to the 5D II.  I'll be losing a couple hundred for buying/selling the 5D II, but even added to the price of the 5D III, I still come out well ahead compared to the original street price of the 5D III/D800.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dstppy on December 03, 2012, 12:35:18 PM
The price complaints felt like sour grapes to me.  This was the camera people WANTED, and they wanted it for the price of the current model. 

If car manufacturers skipped 5 years, then gave you a new price, we'd all crap our pants.

I'm waiting for lower, but I can't say it's anything other than my pride/feelings that make $3000 or $3500 too much.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: R1-7D on December 03, 2012, 12:36:59 PM
I'm curious what people think of the Mark III now.  Most of the initial backlash was price-related, so what does everyone think now comparing the 5D3 to D800?  Especially if you're comparing it at the $2499 price that alot of people got recently.

Got mine through the 2500 promotion, and I love it.  Adds a stop or more at high ISOs and the AF is great compared to the 5D II. 

Maybe in jpeg, but not in RAW. The difference is almost negligible. AF is another story, though...

When the price comes down to $2500 again in the new year I'll pick a 5D3 up. It's an amazing camera.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on December 03, 2012, 12:40:53 PM
The lower prices are in line with the usual Canon trend to lower prices before the end of the fiscal year, when times are tough like they are now,  the discounts get bigger.  Canon wins because they are able to reduce inventory and show stockholders a better bottom line for 2012, and the buyers win as well.  Retailers sell them at the reduced price while they last, sometimes thru most of January, and then the price rises again.
Retailers will find ways to get around map prices. You can often just call them and ask for a lower price or a package deal.
Canon loves it when they give the printers away, since ink sales are where the profit is.
 
 
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 03, 2012, 12:56:50 PM
It looks like the lawyers have figured out a way to skirt the terms of MMAP pricing. :)

reminds me of a particular retailer site (name escapes me at the moment).  They explained on their site that clicking the "show me the price"  button was equivalent to walking into a camera store, seeing the retail price listed on the shelf, and then asking the salesman about the price they would sell it for!  It is funny that Adorama and B&H both reveal the lower the price in the cart -- and for the first time in a long time these two retailers do not agree in price down to the penny :D 

At the moment, Adorama is $2990.00.  Norman does the same thing (posts a different price in the cart) but is $3299.00
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Zlatko on December 03, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
I'm curious what people think of the Mark III now.  Most of the initial backlash was price-related, so what does everyone think now comparing the 5D3 to D800?  Especially if you're comparing it at the $2499 price that alot of people got recently.

Got mine through the 2500 promotion, and I love it.  Adds a stop or more at high ISOs and the AF is great compared to the 5D II. 

Maybe in jpeg, but not in RAW. The difference is almost negligible. AF is another story, though...

When the price comes down to $2500 again in the new year I'll pick a 5D3 up. It's an amazing camera.
I think it's more than negligible in RAW.  I think I'm seeing a good stop more from the 5DIII at high ISO than from the 5DII.  It definitely adds some more usability in low light.  The auto white balance is also better in low light situations.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Zlatko on December 03, 2012, 01:13:46 PM
I'm curious what people think of the Mark III now.  Most of the initial backlash was price-related, so what does everyone think now comparing the 5D3 to D800?  Especially if you're comparing it at the $2499 price that alot of people got recently.
I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price.  The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need).  The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700.  At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing.  Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper.  Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't.  And the price of most electronics drops over time.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Random Orbits on December 03, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Got mine through the 2500 promotion, and I love it.  Adds a stop or more at high ISOs and the AF is great compared to the 5D II. 

Maybe in jpeg, but not in RAW. The difference is almost negligible. AF is another story, though...

When the price comes down to $2500 again in the new year I'll pick a 5D3 up. It's an amazing camera.

I'm not talking about jpeg; I only use RAW.  The 5DIII doesn't have the nasty chromatic pattern noise that the 5DII has.  Whereas I primarily used the 5DII up to 3200, I'm willing to use the 5DIII to 6400/8000/10000.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: pdirestajr on December 03, 2012, 01:34:31 PM
I'm not surprised that Canon is dropping the 5D3's price now.
In my opinion, Canon was very smart in their marketing. They launched the 5D3 higher than expected for the consumer market. This kept the old 5D2 still in high demand at an incredibly "affordable" price. Pros were fine paying the premium price early because they need it to do their job + it's a business expense. Now they introduce a cheaper full-frame body to take the 5D2's current price point, and can safely lower the 5D3.

Nikon didn't have that issue as they immediately discontinued the D700.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: kubelik on December 03, 2012, 01:47:44 PM
I'm not surprised that Canon is dropping the 5D3's price now.
In my opinion, Canon was very smart in their marketing. They launched the 5D3 higher than expected for the consumer market. This kept the old 5D2 still in high demand at an incredibly "affordable" price. Pros were fine paying the premium price early because they need it to do their job + it's a business expense. Now they introduce a cheaper full-frame body to take the 5D2's current price point, and can safely lower the 5D3.

Nikon didn't have that issue as they immediately discontinued the D700.

+1 ... I think you nailed it on the nose.

regarding 5DIII image quality vs 5DII image quality, I'm seeing about 1/2-stop improvement in RAW, which is enough reason for me to upgrade (along with the AF and all the other improvements)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 03, 2012, 01:50:34 PM
...and now if they would just support the AF assist beam in low light with flash.  maybe the promised firmware...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 03, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price.  The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need).  The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700.  At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing.  Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper.  Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't.  And the price of most electronics drops over time.

I beg to disagree... I doubt that D800 received complaints about pricing. Nikon offered it at exactly the same price as its predecessor (D700), despite also making significant improvements. How do you justify 5DIII's price increase of $800 ($3500 at launch compared to 5DII at $2700)? The fact that Canon can still make a profit at $2500-$2700 proves that at $3500, the camera was grossly overpriced, so that Canon could milk the early adopters.  I think people had every right to complain about its pricing.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: scrup on December 03, 2012, 08:58:35 PM
Just noticed the mark 2 is off the refurbished list and mark 3 is in at $2799

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_309850_-1 (http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_309850_-1)

Mite be able to pick it up for $2100 if it has another 25% off sale sometime in the future.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: glowsplint on December 03, 2012, 10:30:34 PM
Just noticed the mark 2 is off the refurbished list and mark 3 is in at $2799

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_309850_-1 (http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_309850_-1)

Mite be able to pick it up for $2100 if it has another 25% off sale sometime in the future.
I like how Canon advertises the savings to us consumers.

You Pay:   $2,799.20
Was:   $2,799.21
Price Drop:   $0.01

What a difference!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Zlatko on December 03, 2012, 10:47:04 PM
I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price.  The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need).  The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700.  At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing.  Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper.  Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't.  And the price of most electronics drops over time.

I beg to disagree... I doubt that D800 received complaints about pricing. Nikon offered it at exactly the same price as its predecessor (D700), despite also making significant improvements. How do you justify 5DIII's price increase of $800 ($3500 at launch compared to 5DII at $2700)? The fact that Canon can still make a profit at $2500-$2700 proves that at $3500, the camera was grossly overpriced, so that Canon could milk the early adopters.  I think people had every right to complain about its pricing.
The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial.  Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.  Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.  You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.  Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: RiceCake on December 03, 2012, 11:58:54 PM

Maybe in jpeg, but not in RAW. The difference is almost negligible. AF is another story, though...

When the price comes down to $2500 again in the new year I'll pick a 5D3 up. It's an amazing camera.

Hmmmm, I find it interesting that you (not a 5D mkIII owner) are telling someone else (who owns a 5D mkIII) that the low light performance is not what they thinks it is...

I personally am saving up for this camera specifically for its low light performance in video and its AF abilities. These 'sales' look great because the EBay ones never seem to ship to Canada. Can't wait till Christmas!!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 04, 2012, 09:02:53 AM
... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.  You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.  Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it.  The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Zlatko on December 04, 2012, 09:50:32 AM
... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.  You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.  Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it.  The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...
Yes, and keep in mind that they don't make any profit on the first batch of cameras, no matter how much they charge.  I'm guessing that before a camera like the 5DIII is released, there are several years' worth of research and development by a very advanced work force.  There is likely a huge "money suck" of salaries, benefits, facilities, taxes, etc., before the 5DIII earns any money.  Once the camera is released, they have to sell quite a lot of them to even break even on their investment.  So whether the camera is priced $3,500 or $3,000 initially, they are probably not making any profit at that point, just recouping a very substantial investment.  I'm just guessing, of course, and I have no idea whether or why Nikon would do things any differently.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 04, 2012, 01:43:57 PM
... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.  You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.  Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it.  The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...
Yes, and keep in mind that they don't make any profit on the first batch of cameras, no matter how much they charge.  I'm guessing that before a camera like the 5DIII is released, there are several years' worth of research and development by a very advanced work force.  There is likely a huge "money suck" of salaries, benefits, facilities, taxes, etc., before the 5DIII earns any money.  Once the camera is released, they have to sell quite a lot of them to even break even on their investment.  So whether the camera is priced $3,500 or $3,000 initially, they are probably not making any profit at that point, just recouping a very substantial investment.  I'm just guessing, of course, and I have no idea whether or why Nikon would do things any differently.

certainly there is an intial investment that Canon amortizes across the expected life to produce x amount of profit over time. I'm sure that is carefully modeled and my guess is that the 5D3 project was approved under that (and other) scrutiny.  Whether the financial models  include a high into price or not I don't know, but I suspect so.  If they  made a few hundred more on the first few thousand units that would be money in the bank, to be sure. 
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 04, 2012, 02:42:42 PM
The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial.  Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.

I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.

Quote
Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.

What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.

Quote
You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.

I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.

It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.

Quote
Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Zlatko on December 04, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial.  Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.

I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.

Quote
Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.

What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.

Quote
You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.

I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.

It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.

Quote
Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000
Again, they are a business, not a photographers' aid society.  They have to recover their investment and make a profit, the sooner the better.  Grossing 15% more on a hot product is hardly the definition of greed.  What you call "greed" is what others call smart business.  The penalty of doing otherwise is pretty severe.  Compare Canon, Apple, etc. vs. Bronica, Contax, Kodak, Polaroid, etc.

I don't think any of has any factual basis to state what the price of the 5DIII "should" have been.  We can only guess.  Sure, camera technology matures, but there is constant research and development.  How much did the new AF system cost?  Or the new sensor?  Or the new mirror system?  We don't have a clue.  Should it automatically be cheaper because it's 4 years later?  Not necessarily.  The cost of manufacture 3 months ago vs. now is not really relevant when there are several years worth of investment to recover, not to mention the costs of investing in products yet to be developed.

It's not surprising for a technology company to lower prices over time.  It's the same if you're buying this year's newest model television vs. last year's about to be discontinued model television.  Certainly last year's will be discounted vs. the newest.

I don't see how people "overpay" due to a lack of alternatives.  There are so many alternatives, including the alternative of not buying.  On the one hand, who is so desperately in need of a product that doesn't exist yet that they have no alternative but to "overpay" when it finally comes into existence?  On the other hand, if a new product offers such compelling advantages to a photographer that it is worth an immediate purchase, then why not pay the introductory price?  Did a photographer overpay for the 5DIII by $500, or did having the camera earlier reward him by at least that much?  That's a calculation for each photographer to make, based on their needs and budget.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: katabuki on December 05, 2012, 08:03:33 AM
Hurry up, here is a deal on ebay for 5D Mark3, $2,842.19:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-MARK-3-BODY-22MP-Digital-SLR-w-1-Year-Warranty-/220982844953 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-MARK-3-BODY-22MP-Digital-SLR-w-1-Year-Warranty-/220982844953)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: JBL on December 05, 2012, 08:41:36 AM
Hurry up, here is a deal on ebay for 5D Mark3, $2,842.19:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-MARK-3-BODY-22MP-Digital-SLR-w-1-Year-Warranty-/220982844953 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-MARK-3-BODY-22MP-Digital-SLR-w-1-Year-Warranty-/220982844953)

That one ships from HK so it's definitely Grey Market. You can get a US model (which looks like it's eligible for US warranty) for $2783.99 via eBay.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 06, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
Again, they are a business, not a photographers' aid society.  They have to recover their investment and make a profit, the sooner the better.  Grossing 15% more on a hot product is hardly the definition of greed.  What you call "greed" is what others call smart business.  The penalty of doing otherwise is pretty severe.  Compare Canon, Apple, etc. vs. Bronica, Contax, Kodak, Polaroid, etc.

I don't think any of has any factual basis to state what the price of the 5DIII "should" have been.  We can only guess.  Sure, camera technology matures, but there is constant research and development.  How much did the new AF system cost?  Or the new sensor?  Or the new mirror system?  We don't have a clue.  Should it automatically be cheaper because it's 4 years later?  Not necessarily.  The cost of manufacture 3 months ago vs. now is not really relevant when there are several years worth of investment to recover, not to mention the costs of investing in products yet to be developed.

It's not surprising for a technology company to lower prices over time.  It's the same if you're buying this year's newest model television vs. last year's about to be discontinued model television.  Certainly last year's will be discounted vs. the newest.

I don't see how people "overpay" due to a lack of alternatives.  There are so many alternatives, including the alternative of not buying.  On the one hand, who is so desperately in need of a product that doesn't exist yet that they have no alternative but to "overpay" when it finally comes into existence?  On the other hand, if a new product offers such compelling advantages to a photographer that it is worth an immediate purchase, then why not pay the introductory price?  Did a photographer overpay for the 5DIII by $500, or did having the camera earlier reward him by at least that much?  That's a calculation for each photographer to make, based on their needs and budget.

I understand your points, but I also think we are running in circles, so let me try to simplify and go back to my original example of the current 3 full-frame dslr players:

Nikon:
D700 launch: $3000
D800 launch: $3000
D800 current: $3000

Sony:
A900 launch: $3000
A99 launch: $2800
A99 current: $2800

Canon:
5DII launch: $2700
5DIII launch: $3500
5DIII current: ~$3000

How do you explain the discrepancy:
a) Nikon and Sony are photographer's aid societies, because they kept or even reduced the next generation camera prices. Canon recently decided to join them by currently selling the camera at a loss.

or

b) Canon inflated the launch price by $800 to milk the people willing to pay that price, before dropping it to more competitive levels under market pressure.

Which one do you think is correct :)?
If b), do you approve of such strategy? I mean, even if you personally don't mind overpaying, why can't other people expect a fair price from the beginning?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 06, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
I pick door #3:  These companies operate independantly and their respective marketing departments came up with different pricing models to fit their own company goals, given their own market assesments, research, expected profitabiilty, support and sustainability goals.

its capitalism.  thats what companies do.  Canon can charge whatever they want without our approval,  and we can choose whether or not to buy without theirs.   language such as "fair" or "overpaying" are distractions -- if you dont want the puppy in the window for the displayed price then don't buy it.  If you want to wait until the price of the puppy goes down, then wait.  or go next door and buy a different puppy!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 06, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
I certainly agree that Canon may make their marketing decisions independently. However, the customers have the right to be unhappy about their pricing - and that's my whole point.

In your example, of course I would rather not deal with a company involved in price gauging, and move on the the next window. However, it's not as simple. It's more like that: the puppy is only compatible with pet food sold at the same store. After you already bought the puppy, the store doubles the dog food prices compared with other stores and without any justification. You can choose not to buy and let the puppy starve. But in reality, most people would keep buying and be frustrated.


It's not a single purchase, but a long term relationship. Because we are locked into their proprietary system, we have certain expectations for the future. For example, if Canon for whatever reason decided to transition their system to a new mount and thus render your expensive lens collection obsolete, would that be legal in a capitalist economy? Yes. Would you be unhappy about it? I would.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 06, 2012, 03:16:50 PM
well, first of all, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, not with their dreams of social equality among photographers.

and yes, for those who have been around long enough to remember, Canon DID change the FD lens mount to the present EF  mount, and a great many photographers, including some that I know, were impacted.  one even left the business (rather accelerated his retirement) because of the large investment and because he knew his old equipment could not keep up with the competition for very long.  But I didn't see any letters to the UN demanding that Canon preserve a long term relationship with him or make EF backwards compatible with FD.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you keep bringing up terms like "gouging" and "long term relationship", as if Canon has some social obligation.  They don't.  Canon doesn't have a relationship with anyone except their suppliers and key product champions, sponsored photographers, or whatever they need to accomplish their profitability goals.  the rest of us make investment versus risk choices.  nothing prevents one from taking advantage of the relatively strong used market prices and switch brands. you can shift the risk to someone else. 

and, if by experience you worry that canon will increase the price of puppy chow, then you can choose not to continue investing in their proprietary system and take the risk of investing in someone else's proprietary system.  I'm not saying thats easy for all, but it is what it is. 

There's no question that in order to remain profitable, Canon has to listen, but I bet their #1 corporate objective is profit, not listening, nor is it  arguing about the morality of a 10% fluctuation in price.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 06, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
well, first of all, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, not with their dreams of social equality among photographers.

and yes, for those who have been around long enough to remember, Canon DID change the FD lens mount to the present EF  mount, and a great many photographers, including some that I know, were impacted.  one even left the business (rather accelerated his retirement) because of the large investment and because he knew his old equipment could not keep up with the competition for very long.  But I didn't see any letters to the UN demanding that Canon preserve a long term relationship with him or make EF backwards compatible with FD.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you keep bringing up terms like "gouging" and "long term relationship", as if Canon has some social obligation.  They don't.  Canon doesn't have a relationship with anyone except their suppliers and key product champions, sponsored photographers, or whatever they need to accomplish their profitability goals.  the rest of us make investment versus risk choices.  nothing prevents one from taking advantage of the relatively strong used market prices and switch brands. you can shift the risk to someone else. 

and, if by experience you worry that canon will increase the price of puppy chow, then you can choose not to continue investing in their proprietary system and take the risk of investing in someone else's proprietary system.  I'm not saying thats easy for all, but it is what it is. 

There's no question that in order to remain profitable, Canon has to listen, but I bet their #1 corporate objective is profit, not listening, nor is it  arguing about the morality of a 10% fluctuation in price.

Lol, don't label me a socialist just because I am unhappy with the recent price increases from Canon (including their lenses) :-). My point was simply that the camera was initially overpriced and the significant price drops only months after introduction confirm my observation.

I didn't really mean to go where our conversation is leading, but since we are there... I do believe customers can have expectations. I'm sure you expect your new 5D Mark III to work well beyong the 1 year warranty, even though that's not explicitly promised. Assuming it starts falling apart due to cheap components Canon used to boost their bottom line, is it your problem, because Canon does not owe you anything? On the flip side, if you shoot weddings, do you try to make your customers happy? Or do you do a sloppy bare-minimum job, telling the couple to go somewhere else next time, if they don't like it :-)?

Now, I don't imply that companies should satisfy the (reasonable) expectations because they have social obligations or because of sheer kindness. No, they do that to stay competitive, because a bad reputation would kill the profits in the long run. As you said, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, at least in theory.

In practice it's not so straightforward. The wedding photographer's profit may not be affected, whether the newly-wed couple is happy or not. In Canon's case, it would take a lot of price increases before they outweigh the cost and hassle of switching systems. Until then, all customers can do is complain :-). I bet your friend, who lost his business, did complain, even if he did not write letters to the UN. Is Canon going to listen to us - probably not. But you seem to indicate that we have no rights even to complain and must put up with any crap that Canon chooses to throw our way, because it's OK that they only care about their profit and not about their customers.

On a side note, it's more than a 10% increase. It's a hefty 30% over the initial price of 5DII ($3500 vs $2700). At that rate, Mark V is going to cost close to $6000.

Don't get me wrong, I am not penny-pinching. I overpaid a couple of hundred more than once, when I needed the lens right away. I had no regrets and I did not complain. But that was different. It was a market fluctuation, while this seems like a strategy from Canon to boost its profits at the expense of their customers.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: dlleno on December 07, 2012, 12:08:34 PM
Lol, don't label me a socialist just because I am unhappy with the recent price increases from Canon (including their lenses) :-). My point was simply that the camera was initially overpriced and the significant price drops only months after introduction confirm my observation.

no socialist label intended.  your comments just sounded like you thought Canon played dirty, photgrapher-milking unfair price gouging because they decided to keep selling the 5D2 and price the 5D3 higher.  I don't like the price or that strategy either, and we've already seen endless speculations on Canon's thinking, but it is what it is.  Canon plays the laws of supply and demand, and it appears that sales figures bear out the fact that they played it right, from the corporate profit perspective anyway.  On the other hand, expecting Canon to level the playing field and regulate the price to the same figure for all customers throughout the sales cycle, and to acheive price parity or equality with competitors is just not the way corporations (or supply and demand) work. 

<epistle on pricing, field failures,  impact on clients, etc.>
Quote
...Now, I don't imply that companies should satisfy the (reasonable) expectations because they have social obligations or because of sheer kindness. No, they do that to stay competitive, because a bad reputation would kill the profits in the long run. As you said, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, at least in theory.
bingo. I really don't think you and I are far apart on these points. 
Quote
... But you seem to indicate that we have no rights even to complain and must put up with any crap that Canon chooses to throw our way, because it's OK that they only care about their profit and not about their customers.
I"m not saying we don't have the rights to complain;  I am saying it won't be individually effective and that Canon has the right to do choose what they  listen too.  Unfortunately, to a large degree yes we are at the mercy of the market and Canon's interpretation of it.   Thank goodness for internet forums, to be sure, to the extent that they help Canon read and react to the market, and allow Canon to more clearly see defects and other customer issues, details, etc.  For example, I suspect the f/8 AF fix was a reaction to market demand, and that their original strategy was to push the market towards more expensive glass.  just my opinon of course, but it looks like competition and information from real photographers was an influence, for which I am thrilled. 
Quote

On a side note, it's more than a 10% increase. It's a hefty 30% over the initial price of 5DII ($3500 vs $2700). At that rate, Mark V is going to cost close to $6000.
I think we're talking about Canon here and not the grey market or retailers' trimming their own markups.  Displayed prices for the 5D3 have been reduced on the order of 10% in recent months.  Current price from the best known retailers is down about 15%.  That flash-in-the-pan $2700 abberation is fascinating, to be sure, and I agree that a great many folks wish they had played that game.   
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I am not penny-pinching. I overpaid a couple of hundred more than once, when I needed the lens right away. I had no regrets and I did not complain. But that was different. It was a market fluctuation, while this seems like a strategy from Canon to boost its profits at the expense of their customers.

yea -- similar to your experience I paid 15% more for my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, compared to today's prices,   because I had a need.  did I overpay or was Canon's introduction price unfair?  Is the current price driven by market fluctuation or was it a strategy of Canon to boost profits early on and then stop doing that after some period of time?   it doesn't matter;  canon had supply and I had demand;  the value of a product is defined by what people are willing to pay for it.    I agree Canon is pretty good at playing that game, and time will tell how sustainable their current strategy is. 
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: roguewave on December 07, 2012, 07:49:18 PM
I think our opinions have converged quite close :-). I appreciate you sharing your points and arguments!

I might have created the impression of being a Canon hater... it's not true. I am glad to give them praise where it's deserved. In this case, all I wanted to say is that Canon failed to meet my expectations for fair pricing (however subjective they may be), especially in comparison to their competitors. I don't have illusions that Canon is going to listen to my opinion, but that does not mean I would silently swallow my frustration.

As for the 30% increase, I was not comparing the intro and current price of 5DIII, but rather the launch prices of 5DII and 5DIII. I could probably even dismiss that increase as a fluke, if such or even larger increases were not becoming a rule with Canon's recent lens pricing as well. As you said, they are good at playing that game, but I hope that the new offerings from Sigma and Tamron will help rein in Canon's prices at least as far as lenses are concerned.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places
Post by: Hydrogen on January 18, 2013, 09:00:57 PM
On a side note, it's more than a 10% increase. It's a hefty 30% over the initial price of 5DII ($3500 vs $2700). At that rate, Mark V is going to cost close to $6000.

Don't get me wrong, I am not penny-pinching. I overpaid a couple of hundred more than once, when I needed the lens right away. I had no regrets and I did not complain. But that was different. It was a market fluctuation, while this seems like a strategy from Canon to boost its profits at the expense of their customers.

I haven't seen currency exchange rates mentioned on this thread (or I apologize if I missed it)...  On October 1, 2008 the Yen to US Dollar exchange rate was 105:1 or 105 Japanese Yen gave you $1 US Dollar.  At the time of the Canon 5D Mark III's release the exchange rate was 81:1; meaning the US Dollar *lost* value against the Yen over the 3.5 -year period.

Therefore, if we "level the playing field" the exchange rate at time of the 5DM3 release... 81:1, the list price of USD $3,500 equated to 285,090 Yen.  At the time of the 5DM2 release... 105:1, the list price of USD $2,700 equated to 283,117 Yen.  Practically the same VALUE exchanged...

I think we need to face the reality that our US Dollar is maybe not "worthless" but is definitely worth-less and the TRUE mark-up of the 5DM3 with exchange rates factored in is ONLY 0.7%.  You are not seeing things...  It is truly less than 1%.

Now lets ask ourselves if the camera is worth the price?  If we had placed USD $2,700 of our savings in 2008 and invested in the Yen and held it there, today we would have almost $3,500 to purchase the 5DM3 today.

So now my dilema and asking for your advice...

I purchased a brand-new 5DM2 from one of the top-two online dealers for only $1,499 three weeks ago.  It was fresh inventory as the battery date stamp was Nov '11.  I subsequently purchased the 5DM3 for $2,899 from the same dealer.  Not as fresh - battery date stamp is June '11 on the 5DM3 and a bit upset that the product box has some nicks and creases in it (minor, I know).  www.EOSCount.com (http://www.EOSCount.com) said it had zero actuations, so it was a fresh copy, or so I believe.

I am likely to return the 5DM2 because I am clearly getting more spot-on exposures with the 5DM3, but the price difference is obviously huge.  It's tempting to keep the 5DM2, return the 5DM3 and use the M2 for six to twelve months and wait for the 5DM3 to drop further, but I think I got a good deal @ $2,899 and the M3 copy while it has some hot pixels on long exposures, the M2 copy has fewer but they are much brighter...

Your thoughts?  Thanks...