USD pricing for the Canon EOS R6 Mark II and Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the imminent announcement

[neuroanatomist]

What they really should have done in the beginning and should do next is drop [tge R3 price] down to the a9ii's price point of $4,500.

This is such a weird move, to lauch it at the same price like the R6. I bet it'll make a lot of people mad who bought the original R6 right now or a few months ago.

With such strong logical consistency, I’m surprised Canon hasn’t engaged you as a consultant on their pricing strategy.

 

[JohnC]

I find it interesting how many people know exactly what Canon will or should do in their strategy in order to succeed.

In most cases Canon does things differently yet they succeed anyway.

Why would you sell an R3 at 4.5k when you can sell nearly all you can make at 6k? I think I would keep putting the 1.5k each in my pocket as long as possible.

Whatever the exact final specs of the R6II are, I’m sure Canon decided them some time ago. I’m also sure they are designed in such a way as to maximize profit (and not necessarily units sold) which isn’t the same thing at all.

 

[Uneternal]

With such strong logical consistency, I’m surprised Canon hasn’t engaged you as a consultant on their pricing strategy.

Well thank god you aren't, can't even tell 2 names apart.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find it interesting how many people know exactly what Canon will or should do in their strategy in order to succeed.

In most cases Canon does things differently yet they succeed anyway.

Yes, many people on this forum seem to think they know far more about making and selling cameras than the company that dominates the ILC market and has led it for two decades.

Somehow, they don’t realize how asinine their claims sound. It’s both amusing and sad.

I suspect in most cases it’s really just a form of wishing. When they say, “If Canon doesn’t do X or make Y, they’re d00med,” they mean they want X or Y. When they say, “This camera is overpriced, Canon should charge less,” they mean they want the camera but can’t afford it.

 

[Jethro]

That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head.

Since it’s clear that your metacognition is not up to the task, let me rephrase your posts in words you can understand:

Canon not charging more for the R6II will make R6 buyers mad because they’ll feel like they overpaid. Canon should cut the price of the R3.

Sorry if you can’t see the inconsistency between your own statements.

He means there were 2 separate posters (Unchecked and Uneternal) making the contradictory statements.

 

[neuroanatomist]

He means there were 2 separate posters (Unchecked and Uneternal) making the contradictory statements.

Egad, I totally missed that. Apologies to @Uneternal and @Unchecked, I should have read more carefully.

 

[Unchecked]

I find it interesting how many people know exactly what Canon will or should do in their strategy in order to succeed.

In most cases Canon does things differently yet they succeed anyway.

Why would you sell an R3 at 4.5k when you can sell nearly all you can make at 6k? I think I would keep putting the 1.5k each in my pocket as long as possible.

Whatever the exact final specs of the R6II are, I’m sure Canon decided them some time ago. I’m also sure they are designed in such a way as to maximize profit (and not necessarily units sold) which isn’t the same thing at all.

Why? Because they can sell plenty more $4.5k cameras than they do $6k. People around the interwebs (unrealistically) wishing the R6ii have a stacked sensor shows there's a market appetite for a cheaper stacked sensor camera that's not at $6k. Canon can meet them halfway at the $4.5k price point.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why? Because they can sell plenty more $4.5k cameras than they do $6k.

More cameras with a $1500 lower unit margin. It’s possible that you know more about marketing cameras than Canon. It’s also possible that I’ll win the next billion-dollar Powerball lottery. But neither is very likely.

 

[JohnC]

Why? Because they can sell plenty more $4.5k cameras than they do $6k. People around the interwebs (unrealistically) wishing the R6ii have a stacked sensor shows there's a market appetite for a cheaper stacked sensor camera that's not at $6k. Canon can meet them halfway at the $4.5k price point.

But in the real world those numbers don’t work. Without getting too far into the weeds gross margin is likely in the 25% range, perhaps as high as 30 but that is pushing it. That’s 1800 on a 6k camera. So you could theoretically reduce price that much (not really) but you could never make enough cameras to cover the loss in margin. Doesn’t matter how high the demand is, because you would have to increase manufacturing capacity which increases fixed costs, and there goes your margin again.

Just doesn’t work like this. There isn’t as much margin in this stuff as most think.

 

[sanj]

$2100 is a tempting price, but I sold my EF 135L long ago when I realized the 70-200/2.8 II was much more useful to me. I have the RF 70-200/2.8 so I don’t plan to pick up the RF 135L.

Is this an L lens?

 

[mxwphoto]

Is this an L lens?

Yes, it is.
I will eat my shoe if Canon comes out with the 135mm as a non-L lens at that price point.

It would be nice if they came out with a modern day version of the non-L 135mm soft focus lens. That thing was fun to play with but once soft focus control was on the camera's autofocus just wouldn't work properly. I had to shoot in focus stack mode of 10 images to pick out the sharp one each time.

 

[Czardoom]

$2500 is the exact price it should be with a stacked sensor. It shouldnt be overpriced. Stacked sensors are a easy to manufacture and they require less anciliary comonents

You know, if you keep repeating it over and over, maybe someone, someday will believe it. But not likely. Nor as you contend, are stacked sensors the norm for an ILC camera. There are only 7 models that have one. Nikon has 1 (Z9), Canon has 1 (R3), Sony has 3 (A1, A9 II and A9), Olympus has 1 (OM-1) and Fuji has 1 (X-H2S). If a stacked sensor is a requirement for you, that's fine. But if you keep rattling on about how anything coming out in 2022 has to have one or it must be some type of antiquated junk, is just plain stupid.

 

[Czardoom]

The thing is at $6k, the R3 is way overpriced to begin with. What they really should have done in the beginning and should do next is drop it down to the a9ii's price point of $4,500.

If and when Nikon releases a Z8 that competes against the R3 and a9ii, it'll probably be around that $4k~$5k price range, and maybe only then will it force Canon to rethink it's R3 pricing strategy.

Apparently you are forgetting the R3 is a far more rugged, pro level body with integrated grip, and the Sony A9 is not, nor will the rumored Nikon Z8 be in that same category.

 

[Jayk0607]

But in the real world those numbers don’t work. Without getting too far into the weeds gross margin is likely in the 25% range, perhaps as high as 30 but that is pushing it. That’s 1800 on a 6k camera. So you could theoretically reduce price that much (not really) but you could never make enough cameras to cover the loss in margin. Doesn’t matter how high the demand is, because you would have to increase manufacturing capacity which increases fixed costs, and there goes your margin again.

Just doesn’t work like this. There isn’t as much margin in this stuff as most think.

Some people don't realize how much work is done to come up with such business decisions. There were probably hundreds of people working behind the scene, both internal and many external consultants and massive data and analysis to come up with the price they decided - it's not like few executives fiddling their thumbs and go.. hmm I think $2,500 is the right price.

 

[aledronix]

Sold! Well probably. Want to see the mk I discount. Anyone have an idea how long they might keep selling the mk i alongside based in historical norm?

Until they run out )

 

[TukTuk]

I don't get why so many people are convinced it can't be the stacked sensor from the R3. Surely once the development of the sensor is done it is cheaper for canon to use it as many times as possible as opposed to developing a new sensor that isn't stacked just for a cheaper camera.

because for stacked (or non stacked) sensors the cost is not in development but in manufacturing ... 1DxII / 1DxIII sensor (a little tuned 1DxII sensor paired with better processor) was cheap to make, the price of that camera was because of the camera itself and its position in the lineup, not because its sensor cost was 3/4 of the camera price - so cheap FSI old sensor (which dates really to 1DxII time) made its way into cheap camera (R6) ... even Sony Semi which makes way more stacked sensors for much longer than Canon can't make them cheap enough and Canon managed to put just one stacked sensor into production dSLM while Sony Semi makes A1, Z9, A9 - several marks, X-H2S, OM-1

 

[TukTuk]

Are the RF 85's a lot sharper than the EF 85's? I haven't really checked as I can't be bothered to own one any more.

there are tests @ optical limits site - EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is not that great @ borders wide open or close to wide open on 21mp sensor ( see how border fare vs center) while RF one does well @ 30mp (the same see how borders fare vs center)

 

[TukTuk]

he R3 is way overpriced to begin with.

so far Canon sells each one they manage to make, so I 'd say it is underpriced still

 

[Pete Roberts]

I'm curious as to why there has been no mention of overheating in the specs of the R6II. I guess we'll find out soon enough!

 

[1in8billion]

$2500 is a pretty good deal but there's no way it'll be a stacked sensor now.

It still may be stacked. It could be modified but still the same sensor. With the competition, they know giving it the R3 sensor will be huge and they don’t have to retool so there’s cost savings. Plus due to competition, that could be why the price is good. I wouldn’t count it out.