Canon smarter than we think

[XanuFoto]

Hmm. While Canon did listen to users and did incorporate user feedback into the 5DIII, their strategy is not brilliant.
In fact, just the opposite.

Raising prices in the face of ever increasing completion is ... well, just dumb.

With mirrorless cameras increasing their share in the lower end of the market, the smart strategy for Canon (and Nikon) would be to move as many users as possible upmarket, where FF has a unique size advantage.

The 5DIII should have been announced at $2600 - a symbolic lowering of the price (compared to the 5DII), designed to make a switch to FF more attractive.

Instead, Canon raised the 5DIII price by 30%, effectively repositioning the 5DIII as a camera strictly for pros.

The problem is, pros have never been the core market of the 5D series.

In case there are doubts about Canon’s "brilliant" pricing strategy, just consider that the 5DII could not be found in stock for more than a year after it went on sale. In contrast, just a week after the 5DIII’s general availability, it is now in stock in many retailers:
http://instock.1001noisycameras.com/canon-5d-mark-iii-pre-orders/

It is very safe to say that just a week after general availability, supply is already outstripping demand for this camera.
Good luck to Canon as even more 5DIII’s are on their way to the stores.

They have priced a camera for the segment you are talking about. Its called the MKII

[neuroanatomist]

Pardon me the silly question, but if Canon is so smart, why the first three best seller DSLR cameras on Amazon are Nikon's?

Last month, Canon held 4 of the 5 top spots, including #1.  It's unclear how Amazon ranks their sales (updated hourly doesn't mean the rankings reflect only the last hour's worth of sales), but it is clear that Canon has far more of the global dSLR market share than Nikon.

[keithfullermusic]

I never thought it was a secret what Canon was doing.  Clearly it makes more sense to break up the functions of the cameras from a business standpoint, especially when they share much of the same technology.  Why would Canon release the perfect camera for everyone?  If they did it would cost a bazillion dollars and no one would buy it.  This way, they aren't as expensive, there are models for many different price brackets, and it forces people to buy multiple.

The 5Diii seems like the perfect all around event camera:  great pics in low light/high iso, FF, quick, great focus system, amazing video, perfect (debatable) MP for events, etc.

If I want pics of wildlife I will take out my 50D (crop) for the extra "reach" with my lenses.  And believe me that is some serious extra reach.  My 100-400 is like 160-640 on the 50D!!!

If they made the 5D with a bazillion pixels I wouldn't need a crop body.  I would sell it and buy the 5D.  That used sale wouldn't be money for Canon and they realize that.  Having different models for different uses is a great business idea, as long as they share parts and technology in order to keep costs down through economies of scale.

[XanuFoto]

In short, what I am saying is that it seems as though Canon really did study their market closely and may have produced a camera that is intended to sell, rather than a camera that is intended to be popular on forum and testing sites.

Of course the 5d3 will sell because people who got a 5d2 and expensive lenses but miss a better af cannot anywhere else (neither the "real pro" 1dx nor the aps-c 7d). And there are enough well-off amateurs that don't care about a couple of thousand bucks, so Canon could also sell a 5d3d (deluxe) with gold plated plastic and it would sell, too.

But is it enough to make people invest even more in the platform and Canon gear for the long term? Marketing might be about short term sales, but company strategy is for medium and long term shareholder value and roi, too. Canon might become the Kodak of the 21st century - legacy products that work just fine, but a lack of future outlook and technology edge.

Canon might pretty much have most technology ready. They will release it when the market is ready for it.

[XanuFoto]

It wasn't just wedding and event photographers Canon was paying attention to. At 6 FPS with the flagship AF system, the 5DIII is good enough for pro sports.

As good as the 1DX? No, of course not -- but it's better than lots of pro / top-of-the-line cameras (especially film) that have been used to shoot the Super Bowl and the World Series in the past. For that matter, save for the framerate (which falls into the "good enough" category), it's a better sports camera than any other camera Canon has made. And if the AF is as good as it looks to be, that alone may well make up for the slightly slower framerate over the pre-1DX cameras.

I'll bet lots of newsrooms will be picking the 5DIII over the 1DX for their reporters, especially in these economic times. Certainly, those that only buy new cameras when the old ones die will be going for the 5DIII. And the readers won't ever know the difference.

Cheers,

b&

+1

[XanuFoto]

Like many other, I also with the 5DIII were priced closer to $3,000 than $3,500, but at the end of the day, I was more than willing to cough up the extra dough for its substantial improvements in AF, FPS, and build quality.

That said, I don't think Canon has showed all its cards just yet. There's been talk of an entry-level FF body for quite some time, and if it turns out to be true, the 5DIII's price point makes more sense. The fate of the 7D line is unknown at this point, either, so if Canon does axe the 7D or merge it into the xxD line, then an entry-level FF body priced somewhere between the 7D and the 5DIII makes even more sense.

Nailed it.

[nehemiah]

Interesting that the ones who can't afford the camera seem to be the ones who have the strongest business advice for Canon.

I'm a non-pro that's been posting in the BH and Amazon threads like many many others that can't currently buy this camera (I've ordered, not in stock).  Obscure shops may have a couple in stock briefly, but the big retailers like BH and Amazon -- good luck.  You can go right now and will have to wait 1-2 months according to their website for body-only. 

I've done pretty well in business (on a small business scale).  I own a 7D, several primes, 2 L lenses, 2x583EX2's, Elinchrom 500W strobes, and now am buying the 5D3.  But you know what?  Still my coffee set up costs more than my photo gear put together.  And as for business advice for Canon?  Don't have any -- they seem to be doing great.  Since all indications are that the 5D3 is better than the 5D2, it's going to be a pretty fantastic camera.  3.5K is reasonable.

[keithfullermusic]

Interesting that the ones who can't afford the camera seem to be the ones who have the strongest business advice for Canon.

I'm a non-pro that's been posting in the BH and Amazon threads like many many others that can't currently buy this camera (I've ordered, not in stock).  Obscure shops may have a couple in stock briefly, but the big retailers like BH and Amazon -- good luck.  You can go right now and will have to wait 1-2 months according to their website for body-only. 

I've done pretty well in business (on a small business scale).  I own a 7D, several primes, 2 L lenses, 2x583EX2's, Elinchrom 500W strobes, and now am buying the 5D3.  But you know what?  Still my coffee set up costs more than my photo gear put together.  And as for business advice for Canon?  Don't have any -- they seem to be doing great.  Since all indications are that the 5D3 is better than the 5D2, it's going to be a pretty fantastic camera.  3.5K is reasonable.

whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant.  people can still understand business models without tons of cash in their pockets.

[neuroanatomist]

whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant.  people can still understand business models without tons of cash in their pockets.

True...but it can bias their viewpoint.  Consider an extreme example - the cost of Vertex Pharmaceuticals' Kalydeco, a treatment for cystic fibrosis.  I understand the business model which results in pricing of $300,000 for a year of drug, but if I had a child with CF I'd certainly be damn angry about it...

[Marsu42]

Interesting that the ones who can't afford the camera seem to be the ones who have the strongest business advice for Canon.

What magic insight enables you to tell if people can't afford the camera at all or just aren't willing to pay a premium for the real world photography advantages that the 5d3 offers over the 5d2 or aps-c bodies?

They have priced a camera for the segment you are talking about. Its called the MKII

I very much doubt that the mk2 is here to stay, it is very unusual that a clear successor would be kept along the original. Imho the 5d2 is here to dampen the 5d3 price tag and enable people to get a ff at a somewhat reasonable price until a real entry level ff body is there.

[awinphoto]

whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant.  people can still understand business models without tons of cash in their pockets.

True...but it can bias their viewpoint.  Consider an extreme example - the cost of Vertex Pharmaceuticals' Kalydeco, a treatment for cystic fibrosis.  I understand the business model which results in pricing of $300,000 for a year of drug, but if I had a child with CF I'd certainly be damn angry about it...

Fair enough but a child with cystic fibrosis NEEDS the medicine and are being gouged... No one NEEDS a 5d3... A lot of people WANT a 5d3 but there are so many options/solutions/other offerings to get by without it... in this case it's Needs vs Wants

[briansquibb]

it's a better sports camera than any other camera Canon has made. And if the AF is as good as it looks to be, that alone may well make up for the slightly slower framerate over the pre-1DX cameras.

mmm - I would guess that 1D4 owners would dispute that .....

[neuroanatomist]

whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant.  people can still understand business models without tons of cash in their pockets.

True...but it can bias their viewpoint.  Consider an extreme example - the cost of Vertex Pharmaceuticals' Kalydeco, a treatment for cystic fibrosis.  I understand the business model which results in pricing of $300,000 for a year of drug, but if I had a child with CF I'd certainly be damn angry about it...

Fair enough but a child with cystic fibrosis NEEDS the medicine and are being gouged...

I agree with your point, but that's exactly the bias I was referring to...'gouged'.  A business model is a business model, and many factors go into setting a price point.  In this case, CF is a very small market, and the drug is only effective in 5% of patients in that already small market.  R&D costs are high, and spent, and must be recovered for ROI. 

Similarly, the cost to produce a 1D X is not double that to produce a 5DIII, but the cost to the consumer is double.  Or for an even more direct example, compare the D800 with the D800E - basically the same camera (in fact, they took something away rather than adding something to the -E version), but fewer expected sales means a $300 higher cost for the product.  Selling price has nothing to do with production costs, but rather is a combination of market forces and, to some extent, R&D recovery - that's why pills that cost literally pennies to produce can cost hundreds of dollars for the patient.

[awinphoto]

whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant.  people can still understand business models without tons of cash in their pockets.

True...but it can bias their viewpoint.  Consider an extreme example - the cost of Vertex Pharmaceuticals' Kalydeco, a treatment for cystic fibrosis.  I understand the business model which results in pricing of $300,000 for a year of drug, but if I had a child with CF I'd certainly be damn angry about it...

Fair enough but a child with cystic fibrosis NEEDS the medicine and are being gouged...

I agree with your point, but that's exactly the bias I was referring to...'gouged'.  A business model is a business model, and many factors go into setting a price point.  In this case, CF is a very small market, and the drug is only effective in 5% of patients in that already small market.  R&D costs are high, and spent, and must be recovered for ROI. 

Similarly, the cost to produce a 1D X is not double that to produce a 5DIII, but the cost to the consumer is double.  Or for an even more direct example, compare the D800 with the D800E - basically the same camera (in fact, they took something away rather than adding something to the -E version), but fewer expected sales means a $300 higher cost for the product.  Selling price has nothing to do with production costs, but rather is a combination of market forces and, to some extent, R&D recovery - that's why pills that cost literally pennies to produce can cost hundreds of dollars for the patient.

Good point.    I guess I was initially failing to see the correlation until you pointed it out

[x-vision]

Interesting that the ones who can't afford the camera seem to be the ones who have the strongest business advice for Canon.

There's a difference between "affording" and "overpaying".
Smart buyers hate overpaying .