July 24, 2014, 10:03:00 PM

Author Topic: From the recent heavy discount, Canon will increase prices of 5D mk III (US)  (Read 5278 times)

TriGGy

  • Guest
I take this as a rumor, though this bit of info comes from Cameraegg

http://www.cameraegg.com/canon-dslr-and-lens-price-increase-coming-november-1sttomorrow/

I don't know about the other vendors if they will follow suit.


canon rumors FORUM


DB

  • Guest
Price increases would be a double-edged sword: great for current owners, bad for potential buyers.

AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
That page just seems like a scam to sell cameras through an affiliate link.

Where are their sources?

There are none listed just this is what is going to happen.... then the link they do provide goes to one of their own pages that tells you...

Quote
Through November and early December 2012, Canon USA has started new rebates on selected DSLRs, lenses and Speedlites. You can save up to $500 on selected products. Just follow the link below to get now.

So suddenly the very link they have on their page telling people to buy these cameras from their affiliate Amazon link because of the price rises on November links to an article that states that there will be rebates not raises for November.

Just seems like a link scam to me.
Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8243
    • View Profile
Its true, the Canon MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) program starts Nov 1, so this is just repeating well known information dressed up to make it seem that they have inside information.
Don't expect any ebay prices to change though.  Many of the big discounts are from sellers that are not Canon Authorized resellers, so it means nothing to them.

scrup

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
    • Free Hosting
Is Canon allowed to do this.

Isn't this borderline price fixing.

AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Is Canon allowed to do this.

Isn't this borderline price fixing.

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

Going on that definition i would say yes it comes pretty damn close to it.

The problem being that there are alternative brands you can switch too, so its technically price fixing but it isn't at the same time.

If on the other hand say Sony, Nikon and Canon all agreed to increase or lower their cameras to the same prices to squeeze out Olympus and Fuji etc then THAT WOULD be price fixing.
Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8243
    • View Profile
Is Canon allowed to do this.

Isn't this borderline price fixing.
Yes, Sony has been doing it for many years, Apple for years, Nikon started last year, and now Canon.

canon rumors FORUM


PackLight

  • Guest
It would be price fixing if Nikon, Canon and Sony agreed to sell at certain agreed prices. It would be price fixing if all retailers agreed to set a fixed price.

This is not price fixing. A manufacture can require it's retailers to charge a certain price. It happens all the time.

The reason for the price control is to protect the mom and pop shops from cut throat internet shops that sell without charging tax. The mom and pop stores need to stay in business, my town is a fair size City and there is only one shop in town that I can go to and actually see a new 7D or higher model.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 11:24:46 PM by PackLight »

skitron

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
It would be price fixing if Nikon, Canon and Sony agreed to sell at certain agreed prices. It would be price fixing if all retailers agreed to set a fixed price.

This is not price fixing. A manufacture can require it's retailers to charge a certain price. It happens all the time.

Actually according to US anti-trust law, manufacturer mandated prices to their dealers perfectly fit the descriptions of prohibited actions described in the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.

However...the acts also have language about "reasonableness" of the actions that fit the descriptions. Which in legalese means its up to the courts to determine who gets to violate the acts and who doesn't.

Obviously a manufacturer of some sort with a dealer network, was in the past, given a favorable ruling in a court case and now "dealer network price fixing" activity is essentially exempt from the acts as a result.

But that doesn't mean that dealer network price fixing doesn't fit the descriptions of prohibited activities under the acts, it just means the courts have issued an exemption is all...which of course if you're Canon, that's all you need and care about.

5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 100L, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4 DG, Canon TC 1.4x III

PackLight

  • Guest
It would be price fixing if Nikon, Canon and Sony agreed to sell at certain agreed prices. It would be price fixing if all retailers agreed to set a fixed price.

This is not price fixing. A manufacture can require it's retailers to charge a certain price. It happens all the time.

Actually according to US anti-trust law, manufacturer mandated prices to their dealers perfectly fit the descriptions of prohibited actions described in the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.

However...the acts also have language about "reasonableness" of the actions that fit the descriptions. Which in legalese means its up to the courts to determine who gets to violate the acts and who doesn't.

Obviously a manufacturer of some sort with a dealer network, was in the past, given a favorable ruling in a court case and now "dealer network price fixing" activity is essentially exempt from the acts as a result.

But that doesn't mean that dealer network price fixing doesn't fit the descriptions of prohibited activities under the acts, it just means the courts have issued an exemption is all...which of course if you're Canon, that's all you need and care about.

What you miss with your interpretation is that the "Dealer" is not setting the price, the manufacture is. The manufacture can set the price of their product and dictate the amount it is sold for, provided the manufacture has adequate competition in the market. This is a common practice with manufactures. You can call it "Price Fixing" if you like, but it is not illegal "Price Fixing".

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3672
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.500px.com/home
Canon didn't adjust the price, retailers did. The original price remains as is, there is NO increase.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

skitron

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
It would be price fixing if Nikon, Canon and Sony agreed to sell at certain agreed prices. It would be price fixing if all retailers agreed to set a fixed price.

This is not price fixing. A manufacture can require it's retailers to charge a certain price. It happens all the time.

Actually according to US anti-trust law, manufacturer mandated prices to their dealers perfectly fit the descriptions of prohibited actions described in the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.

However...the acts also have language about "reasonableness" of the actions that fit the descriptions. Which in legalese means its up to the courts to determine who gets to violate the acts and who doesn't.

Obviously a manufacturer of some sort with a dealer network, was in the past, given a favorable ruling in a court case and now "dealer network price fixing" activity is essentially exempt from the acts as a result.

But that doesn't mean that dealer network price fixing doesn't fit the descriptions of prohibited activities under the acts, it just means the courts have issued an exemption is all...which of course if you're Canon, that's all you need and care about.

What you miss with your interpretation is that the "Dealer" is not setting the price, the manufacture is. The manufacture can set the price of their product and dictate the amount it is sold for, provided the manufacture has adequate competition in the market. This is a common practice with manufactures. You can call it "Price Fixing" if you like, but it is not illegal "Price Fixing".

Actually the fact the dealer is not setting the price is precisely my point. The price is being set by one party, the mfgr, and other parties are acting in concert to also set the identical price, the dealers. It's classic price fixing with the caveat that the courts have allowed an exemption under the "reasonableness" language of the acts. And as I stated in my first post, it is not illegal since they (apparently) have court precedents where courts have granted exemptions for this practice, assumingly for the very reason you cite - that there is competition between mfgrs therefore competition between dealers is not needed for an efficient market. Which the economics minor in me knows is pure hogwash. But yet I agree Canon is within their legal comfort zone to do it. And we of course are within our right to not buy their wares.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 04:31:38 PM by skitron »
5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 100L, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4 DG, Canon TC 1.4x III

PackLight

  • Guest
It would be price fixing if Nikon, Canon and Sony agreed to sell at certain agreed prices. It would be price fixing if all retailers agreed to set a fixed price.

This is not price fixing. A manufacture can require it's retailers to charge a certain price. It happens all the time.

Actually according to US anti-trust law, manufacturer mandated prices to their dealers perfectly fit the descriptions of prohibited actions described in the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.

However...the acts also have language about "reasonableness" of the actions that fit the descriptions. Which in legalese means its up to the courts to determine who gets to violate the acts and who doesn't.

Obviously a manufacturer of some sort with a dealer network, was in the past, given a favorable ruling in a court case and now "dealer network price fixing" activity is essentially exempt from the acts as a result.

But that doesn't mean that dealer network price fixing doesn't fit the descriptions of prohibited activities under the acts, it just means the courts have issued an exemption is all...which of course if you're Canon, that's all you need and care about.

What you miss with your interpretation is that the "Dealer" is not setting the price, the manufacture is. The manufacture can set the price of their product and dictate the amount it is sold for, provided the manufacture has adequate competition in the market. This is a common practice with manufactures. You can call it "Price Fixing" if you like, but it is not illegal "Price Fixing".

Actually the fact the dealer is not setting the price is precisely my point. The price is being set by one party, the mfgr, and other parties are acting in concert to also set the identical price, the dealers. It's classic price fixing with the caveat that the courts have allowed an exemption under the "reasonableness" language of the acts. And as I stated in my first post, it is not illegal since they (apparently) have court precedents where courts have granted exemptions for this practice, assumingly for the very reason you cite - that there is competition between mfgrs therefore competition between dealers is not needed for an efficient market. Which the economics minor in me knows is pure hogwash. But yet I agree Canon is within their legal comfort zone to do it. And we of course are within our right to not buy their wares.


Canon is only one example, this happens with Cars, TV's, electronics, Apple Computers, iphone plans, furniture companies and much much more.

Plus the reason for the price control in Canon's situation is to protect the Mom and Pop stores that can't compete with B&H, Adorama and Amazons of the world. Protection of the Mom and Pop stores is the essence of why the Sherman Act was created in the first place. To say this law should be used to destroy the very entities it was created to protect just so we can buy a 5D III $200 cheaper online is ridiculous. And apparantly the courts have agreed with this.

canon rumors FORUM