According to Cameratimes, the US price is confirmed at $3.499 and in Canada CAD4.299
http://cameratimes.org/confirmed-us-price-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-3499/
http://cameratimes.org/confirmed-us-price-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-3499/
5DIV price confirmed
- Thread starter Eldar
- Start date
Eldar said:
Ouch!
That would mean the Canon Matket-manipulated price here would be closer to $7,000 if that USA price is to be believed. Retail prices here are almost always twice the USian price regardless of the exchange rate.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:privatebydesign said:
That doesn't disagree with what I said above, rather just illustrates all of the middlemen that take a cut
If by "take a cut" you mean pay taxes, transportation companies, warehouse rents, insurance, advertising, CPS, warranties, certification and regulatory fees, licenses, permits, importers and dealers (and all the costs associated with running a dealership, wages, rent, electricity, taxes, accountants, websites blah blah blah), yep they all have to be paid for. How much do you think anything wholesales for in relation to retail? Do you think the camera industry is unique and the 5D MkIV pricing structure specifically designed to 'rip off' poor unsuspecting Canon purchasers?
There are three entities trying to specifically make money off the sale, Canon JPN, the importers (which are often wholly owned by Canon JPN) and the retailer. That is not a lot of "middlemen".
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
How do you know that? Do you know if Canon India is owned by Canon JPN? Do you know how much profit Canon India makes either in general or on a 5D MkIV? No, you are just being silly.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Country branches are often legal entities in their own right so accounts are separate and this is done for legal as well as financial reasons. Canon India will pay JPN for the products in exactly the same was as the shop pays Canon India.
When it comes to things like warranty you may find Canon JPN underwrites any liabilities for product failure but that does not change the legal standing. Again, just like Canon India underwrites any quality issues under terms of the warranty for goods sold by the shop.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
I know this is a mistake, I know, but...
It's called running a Business, and if the Business can be run at a profit, then that's actually preferred to the alternative, which is running a Business at a loss.
Running a Business at a Loss has one (maybe more than One), but one serious pitfall, it's generally called "Going Bankrupt", but it has other names as well, "Stupidity", "Mismanagement", "Failing to interpret the Market", "Not charging enough for inovation" (I know You'll Love that one), and so on ad infinitum.
It's always about the Bottom Line in Business, there is no other medium to judge wether you've done it right or not, but if you've never Ran your own Business, or had someone trust you enough to run theirs, this will all be Pie in the Sky I'm sure.
Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Sony, Ferrari, Apple et all, have the same Philosophy in General, Make a Profit or go Bust.
I may be winging it here, but I suspect Canon did a bit of Market research to determine the highest price they could charge for their latest Camera to Market, in there they would have considered who might not want to pay 3.5k for the Camera, the research would have come up with your name Dilbert, and considering Canon will loose one sale to Sony, I'm sure they'll still go forward and charge 3.5k for the Camera, not without hesitation I'm sure.
And Yes, there's a reasonable amount of Sarcasm in this Post (actually a lot I know), it's never nice, and I try so very hard not to use it, but you do seem to have this affect on me at times Dilbert.
Upvote
0
A little more than I hoped for (3.300$). Of course still a rumor.Eldar said:
Thinking of getting the 24-105mm kit and selling the lens unused to shave off 150$. And will sell my 6D for around 850$ (my current back-up camera). So 2.500$ effective.
2.500$ is actually still more than I payed for my 5DII's soon after its release(!).
Upvote
0
dilbert said:GuyF said:eml58 said:
Yup, I guess some people just don't understand capitalism.
I think some people don't understand how capitalism really works and that Canon's MSRP enforcement does not favor capitalism (for a start.) There's no capability to bargain with Canon over its pricing of its goods so if you want (or need) to buy Canon, there is very little in the way of "voluntary" involvement possible - you're more or less forced to accept Canon's pricing. That's neither market driven not a capitalist approach. Capitalism is more than just "rape consumer wallets to the greatest extent possible."
need a kleenix.
canon has MAP, so does NIkon and Sony..etc. etc.
it's because the larger channels get dealer discounts. if they are allowed to ADVERTISE the price it hurts the smaller dealers excessively.
So the companies enforce the lower bound to what you can advertise at
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
IMO .. you're being ridiculous.
Canon USA for instance has to pay out salaries, taxes, warranty repair, CPS, etc,etc out of it's own pockets and in local currency.
Also there's a certain % leeway there for retailer incentives and discounts and finally the retailers have to make money off this too.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
MAP doesn't do anything other than enforce advertising.
perhaps look up MAP and what it actually means before complaining about it.
Amazon and bh,etc get around this all the time .. you see this ALOT on sony products. you don't get the price until you put the item in the shopping cart.
Sony, Nikon, Apple, Canon, just about every large vendor does this. Otherwise, it put the smaller retailer at a huge disadvantage for advertising.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
because without it, larger retailers can undercut with competitive advertising.
for instance if vendor A sells 10,000 units online and vender B sells 500 units in store. Vendor A can most likely profit form a lower margin even if their costs are the same. Vendor A could advertise then a much lower price than vendor B could ever do.
MAP attempts to keep it an even playing field as far as advertising and promotion and helps the smaller dealers.
Vendor A can sell for cheaper than vendor B, they simply can't advertise it.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
wow .. latch on one thing as if it's the end of the world.
even ignoring CPS.
Canon USA has to pay for all the local employee salaries, benefits, insurance, buildings, USA federal and state taxes, warranty repair, local support, retailer support, local marketing, local legal and accounting services, and distribution.
on top of that retailers have to pay for employees, advertising, taxes,etc,etc.
did you think all that was no cost? it's free?
Upvote
0
So are you suggesting Canon commit tax fraud so you can save a few bucks on your camera, or maybe they can just avoid paying them?
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
In the capitalist end - Canon is not running a not-for-profit and will try to maximize their profits. Unless Canon has enough pain in lost market share or revenue they won't make a change to their margins. If enough people join Dilbert and boycott the camera then and only then will Canon drop pricing.
Even if Canon drops pricing in a year after the initial demand is met, Canon still benefited from higher margins in the first year.
I have my popcorn and will be waiting and watching to see how pricing for this camera changes in the next year.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
