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.>
...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.
... 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.
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.
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.