Big Canon EOS R price drop, save up to $500 and still get the EF-RF adapter for free

yinzer

I'm New Here
Feb 25, 2019
14
23
Sony A7III release: April 2018
Date of first A7III sale price in the USA: TBD
Total time between release and sale price: TBD (over 1 year at this point)
Not totally correct. Sony just does this stuff differently. Sony has annual rebates for the bulk of their camera lineup every March. The A7III had $200 off as a "trade-in bonus" from Sony this year. In 2018, both the A9 and the recently released A7R3 were part of the program. They released the A7III as last year's rebates ended.
 

yinzer

I'm New Here
Feb 25, 2019
14
23
Still totally correct. You're referring to a different program vs a sale price.
It's a discount, provided by the manufacturer, for a set period of time. It's a sale. Arguing otherwise is just pedantry.

The A7R3, via a Sony program, was discounted by $300 just months after its release. It could have easily been excluded from the promotion, but it wasn't. The A7III was offered at a $200 discount this year, which is totally fine considering its been out for a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knight427

jebrady03

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 2, 2011
529
22
40
Sarasota, FL
I'm not saying it's not a discount. I'm simply saying that "trading something" and "doing nothing" to get a discount are not equivalent scenarios. Not everyone has something to trade (or is willing to offer it). Everyone can do nothing. Therefore, the two scenarios are not equivalent.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
287
248
Madison, WI
It's a discount, provided by the manufacturer, for a set period of time. It's a sale. Arguing otherwise is just pedantry.

The A7R3, via a Sony program, was discounted by $300 just months after its release. It could have easily been excluded from the promotion, but it wasn't. The A7III was offered at a $200 discount this year, which is totally fine considering its been out for a year.
Having to turn in your old camera for a crappy "Trade in" buy back offer that when "increased" by a rebate is not really a sale, especially when the buyback price of your old device + bonus is less than what you can get selling it off of craigslist.

I suppose it's a good deal if you are can get an old d20 for 100 bucks on craigslist and use that as a trade in, you might get 20 on trade in for the camera + 200 bonus. But if you have a decent camera now most of the time you will get more selling it yourself. The buyback prices are pretty low.


oh - I forget - trade ins only apply to what the camera store you are dealing with will buy. If they don't want your old d20 they don't have to give you any of the bonuses either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jebrady03

shutterlag

EOS T7i
Mar 5, 2013
64
6
I think Canon has matched what Sony did on the image quality front. The 6dII sensor was a little bit of a disappointment but the 5DIV and R sensor certainly is within a a few design preferences of the Sony sensor. I guess I should have said the "sensor and processing" needs to be within a generation of Sony. The sensor is certainly right there, the speed of it and the processing speed/features when combined with Mirrorless is a bit behind. Sony is coming out with the s7IIIs & a9II relatively soon with new sensors, and Canon will need to release their new sensor they've been working on to match sooner rather than later.

The slow but steady bleed to Sony and Nikon with professionals & semi-pro amateurs will keep happening if they don't. With the low end of the market collapsing due to cell phones, stopping the high end migrations becomes more important. If the A9II is able to make serious changes to ergonomics/customizability as rumored (supposedly a bigger grip) that will only increase the flow in addition to the sensor improvements.
Real-time autofocus analytics is the bottleneck. Sensor tech is still a critical component, but I don't think that's where Canon will lose. The A9 is already far superior for certain workloads, Tennis for example, where it will never get distracted by the net.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
I'm in sales and the mentality in sales is that when you're competing on price, you're racing towards the bottom. The fact that Canon and Nikon have both adopted sale prices so soon after launch and Sony has not, despite their A7III being on the market twice as long, is quite interesting.
For the first six months following its launch, the a7III was essentially unavailable at most major North American retailers. I have no idea what stock levels were like elsewhere in the world. But in North America, for all practical purposes it’s only been about six months since the a7III was generally available. The lag was not the case for Canon MILCs.

Some have suggested extreme popularity is the reason, but a basic economic principle is that price is influenced by both supply and demand, and since you’re in sales I’m sure you’re aware that manufacturers will often intentionally reduce shipment volumes to induce/maintain high demand. I have no evidence that was the case here, I am merely suggesting one possible explanation for the situation.
 

woodman411

EOS 80D
Aug 1, 2017
108
71
USA
https://www.sonyrumors.co/bcn-full-frame-mirrorless-ranking-in-april-sony-a7-iii-has-40-market-share-and-rising/

It is difficult to get consistent data month to month, but at least for the month of Mar-Apr for FF MILC systems, it shows the A7III outpacing both the EOS R and RP at around 13-14% with a trend that appears to continue vs Canon's offerings which appears to be moving in the opposite direction. It shows almost a 42% FF MILC share in Japan. A recent Top 10 BCN list of ILC systems shows the A7III in 7th place among top ILC sellers in Japan, and it is the ONLY FF body in that list with a price tag at least 2x or more its peers. Top 10 lists are usually dominated with entry level systems, so I was surprised to see it there and must be having an impact on the market overseas since FF system volumes are usually much smaller.

I guess some people don't mind a camera with that is commonly compared to its peers with having inferior color science, weather sealing and ergonomics after all.

https://www.bcnretail.com/research/detail/20190223_107139.html

Also in Japan regarding MILC market share, Canon is still in 1st place, but has shown a consistent downward trend in the previous 3 months while Olympus has consistently gained market share. If the trend continues, Olympus looks to displace Canon for #1. Sony meanwhile has fluctuated up and down.
Why would anyone make a point about trends with less than one months worth of data? That just reeks of mindless propaganda, why regurgitate it here?
 

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
41
35
robertsonrep.com
‘Better’ and ‘ahead’ are subjective...personal value judgements. For example, I believe facts and data comprise the best support for a claim. Your statements suggest you think that name calling and vulgarity are ‘better’ (whereas I think they merely make you appear to be petulant).

As for ‘keeping pace’, is more DR ahead of higher resolution? Is DPAF better than IBIS? Is a broader selection of lenses better than lower cost systems? (Oh, wait...Canon has both of those.) The point is, you don’t get to define ‘better’ or ‘ahead’ for anyone but you. Nor do you get to define what is innovative – the fact that you don’t need/want a new feature or capability doesn’t mean it’s not innovative. Everyone must define what’s best for them, and generally people make their buying choices based on those definitions.

There’s no objective measure of ‘better’, but camera sales can be objectively assessed. So, while it’s impossible to state objectively that Sony is ‘ahead’ of Canon or that Canon is ‘better’, a logical conclusion from Canon’s market share is that the majority of camera buyers believe Canon best meets their needs.

I’m certainly not suggesting that you or anyone else base a buying decision on a camera’s popularity. As I stated, buy what’s best for you. For me, that’s Canon. The most recent example is the drop in ND adapter for the EOS R which is an innovation unmatched by any other manufacturer, and enables me to easily achieve long exposures with my TS-E 17 and 11-24/4L (two other innovations unmatched by any other manufacturer). Gee, that’s three areas where Canon is ‘ahead’ in just one sentence. :p

Although market share shouldn’t drive your buying choices, don’t make the mistake of thinking it can’t affect them. Many people touted the Samsung NX series as being far ‘ahead of’ and ‘better than’ Canon’s MILCs. But you can’t choose to buy one today, because the NX couldn’t capture sufficient market share and Samsung abandoned the MILC market.

Incidentally, CAJ is not one of the individual holdings in my portfolio, although I can’t rule out the possibility that it’s a component of one of the mutual funds in which I have invested.
The only facts you're choosing to espouse are regarding Canon's sales (which was recently announced to have made a severe drop). Many reviews have made it clear that Canon is behind in several areas that folks care about right now: sensor dynamic range, IBIS, eye-tracking, etc... So yeah, you may not value these things, but it's clear a lot of folks do. So of course what people individually value is a subjective thing, but the those features can absolutely be objectively compared to the competition.

Personally, I bought an EOS R on day 1 and find it to be a frustrating product in many ways. Ergonomically, it has a great grip, nice EVF and touch-screen, but I find the control layout to be less good than my 7D or even my Fujifilm X-E3. Don't get me started on the Mfn-bar... But, I'm sticking with it (for now) because of the lenses, both EF and the promise of RF, and because it (mostly) does what I need it to do.

You and I have obviously chosen Canon, cool, that's why we're here. But shoving sales figures down people's throats isn't proving anything.
 

jebrady03

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 2, 2011
529
22
40
Sarasota, FL
For the first six months following its launch, the a7III was essentially unavailable at most major North American retailers. I have no idea what stock levels were like elsewhere in the world. But in North America, for all practical purposes it’s only been about six months since the a7III was generally available. The lag was not the case for Canon MILCs.

Some have suggested extreme popularity is the reason, but a basic economic principle is that price is influenced by both supply and demand, and since you’re in sales I’m sure you’re aware that manufacturers will often intentionally reduce shipment volumes to induce/maintain high demand. I have no evidence that was the case here, I am merely suggesting one possible explanation for the situation.
I think you are looking at smoke and thinking fire when in reality it was a burnout and you didn't hear the engine roaring and the tires screaming.
 

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
41
35
robertsonrep.com
‘Better’ and ‘ahead’ are subjective...personal value judgements. For example, I believe facts and data comprise the best support for a claim. Your statements suggest you think that name calling and vulgarity are ‘better’ (whereas I think they merely make you appear to be petulant).

As for ‘keeping pace’, is more DR ahead of higher resolution? Is DPAF better than IBIS? Is a broader selection of lenses better than lower cost systems? (Oh, wait...Canon has both of those.) The point is, you don’t get to define ‘better’ or ‘ahead’ for anyone but you. Nor do you get to define what is innovative – the fact that you don’t need/want a new feature or capability doesn’t mean it’s not innovative. Everyone must define what’s best for them, and generally people make their buying choices based on those definitions.

There’s no objective measure of ‘better’, but camera sales can be objectively assessed. So, while it’s impossible to state objectively that Sony is ‘ahead’ of Canon or that Canon is ‘better’, a logical conclusion from Canon’s market share is that the majority of camera buyers believe Canon best meets their needs.

I’m certainly not suggesting that you or anyone else base a buying decision on a camera’s popularity. As I stated, buy what’s best for you. For me, that’s Canon. The most recent example is the drop in ND adapter for the EOS R which is an innovation unmatched by any other manufacturer, and enables me to easily achieve long exposures with my TS-E 17 and 11-24/4L (two other innovations unmatched by any other manufacturer). Gee, that’s three areas where Canon is ‘ahead’ in just one sentence. :p

Although market share shouldn’t drive your buying choices, don’t make the mistake of thinking it can’t affect them. Many people touted the Samsung NX series as being far ‘ahead of’ and ‘better than’ Canon’s MILCs. But you can’t choose to buy one today, because the NX couldn’t capture sufficient market share and Samsung abandoned the MILC market.

Incidentally, CAJ is not one of the individual holdings in my portfolio, although I can’t rule out the possibility that it’s a component of one of the mutual funds in which I have invested.
All that being said, how well does the ND filter-adapter perform with stills compared to dedicated ND's? All the reviews I've seen are video focused... I would use it for video, but want it for the same reasons you mentioned... long exposures using wide lenses with incompatible front elements. But I only want it for stills if it performs well...
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,413
859
Don't ever post such comments on DPR, the Sony fanboyzz there will kill you, fill you and grill you...:poop:
And yet they would be unable to post an image that would tax the DR of a 6D2. DR has become an absolute meme.

I stumbled across a 5Dsr review last night by a wedding photographer and had to laugh when he addressed DR. He had a nearly pitch black photo that looked great after a 4 stop push. That's the 5Dsr...not the 5D4 which can push another stop pretty easily.

I guarantee you that I could sign up at DPReview under a false name, post a few 5Ds/sr samples as if they were Sony, and start a thread of Sony fanboys bragging about how Canon can't keep up with their sensors. It's ridiculous.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: justaCanonuser

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,413
859
Real-time autofocus analytics is the bottleneck. Sensor tech is still a critical component, but I don't think that's where Canon will lose. The A9 is already far superior for certain workloads, Tennis for example, where it will never get distracted by the net.
You have experience with this? Could you post the settings? So far in my time with the A9 I've found that yes, it can lose the target and yes, it can get distracted. So I'm curious as to the settings which will result in a 100% keeper rate with never a target loss.

Again, I would never say Sony's AF is "bad". It's one of the best examples of a new and interesting AF technology. But the hype and assumptions and expectations far exceed the reality.
 
Last edited:

jebrady03

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 2, 2011
529
22
40
Sarasota, FL
It's definitely possible to make the A9 AF more tenacious/sticky. I've found it to be a hair shy of flawless, although I haven't tried it in every potential scenario, obviously.
I've found it to be noticeably better than everything else I've ever tried in Canon's lineup as well as Sony's lineup.
 

woodman411

EOS 80D
Aug 1, 2017
108
71
USA
... The slow but steady bleed to Sony and Nikon with professionals...
I'm sorry, what? You know of pros that have switched from their 1dx2's to Alphas? Do tell. Pretty sure you'll say you do, because this is the internet and anyone can say anything. In reality, we all know deep inside you don't, because pros aren't so stupid to believe all the internet propaganda spewed from Sony forums and DPR.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter all this talk about discounts, specs, 1-month sales figures (really?), etc. What matters is Canon and Nikon have bitten the bullet and started with fresh mounts, R and Z, respectively. In contrast, Sony made the fatal, catastrophic mistake of going with the apsc E mount for their FF alpha cameras - 6 years in, they are still trying to match EF lenses, and the ones they come out with, are just as large as EF lenses and more expensive. Pity the fool who got the "value" a73, only to find out what a mess it becomes attaching any lens worth a spit, both with ergonomics and cost ($2600 for a Sony 70-200 f/2.8, really?). Nothing short of an optical quantum breakthrough can change that. All because Sony took the shortcut and went E mount.

Now look at the Canon R and R mount. In its first year alone, it has introduced useful new technology, including the control ring, drop-in filter adapters, shutter closing to prevent sensor dust, and virtually unlimited focus points. Add to that best-in-class fully articulating touchscreen, best-in-class EVF, best-in-class touchpad (who needs the joystick?), best-in-class low light focusing, best-in-class focus speed and accuracy, best-in-class video bitrate and grading, and yes, the best color science and ergonomics (of course), the 1st-gen hits the ground running (I'm not the only one who feels that way: https://alikgriffin.com/canon-eos-r-just-about-everyone-got-it-wrong ). Now add the fresh R mount, allowing groundbreaking lenses like the 28-70 f/2. Yes it's heavy and expensive, but only consumers complain about that - pros can see the value of not needing 2 or 3 dedicated primes. The upcoming RF f/2.8 zooms will rock too, offering again groundbreaking designs.

Yes eye-tracking could improve, and dual-card slots and IBIS will need to come and it will, but the foundation laid down by Canon is rock solid. Watch, just watch, Sony's market share, not on a 1 month basis, but watch it in 6 months, then 1 year, then a few. If it grows, it will not be at Canon's expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
236
137
Pittsburgh, PA
They're $2k gray market new on eBay. And I'll add, worth every penny.
I've considered grey market and used. But I've yet to pull the trigger. I like the risk reduction that comes with a new camera with a warrenty. That said, I'll buy used lenses.
 

shutterlag

EOS T7i
Mar 5, 2013
64
6
You have experience with this? Could you post the settings? So far in my time with the A9 I've found that yes, it can lose the target and yes, it can get distracted. So I'm curious as to the settings which will result in a 100% keeper rate with never a target loss.

Again, I would never say Sony's AF is "bad". It's one of the best examples of a new and interesting AF technology. But the hype and assumptions and expectations far exceed the reality.
The turning point was the latest firmware with real time tracking. For Tennis it is crazy good - go with tracking af-c flexible spot small (actually use that for almost all sports), set AF sensitivity 4 or 5 (maybe 3). It's not 100% keeper rate, but I can't see how it could get any better. My closest comparison point is the D500, which is also fantastic (far better than the 7Dii), but the A9 is better.

EDIT: For the record, I hate the ergonomics of Sony, I don't like their support either. I am not a Sony fan by any means. I'd much rather shoot Canon (or Nikon) but Sony is just so far ahead.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
The only facts you're choosing to espouse are regarding Canon's sales (which was recently announced to have made a severe drop). Many reviews have made it clear that Canon is behind in several areas that folks care about right now: sensor dynamic range, IBIS, eye-tracking, etc... So yeah, you may not value these things, but it's clear a lot of folks do. So of course what people individually value is a subjective thing, but the those features can absolutely be objectively compared to the competition.
Reviews aren’t facts (although some do contain facts). Reviews are the opinions of reviewers...individual opinions. What’s the point of reviews? Today, for the vast majority of the reviewers, the point is to monetize clicks and click-through purchases. Reviewers (many of them) have been ‘making it clear that Canon is behind’ for several years now. The only objective way to gauge the effects of those reviews is to look at sales. If people most highly valued those features the reviewers have been highlighting that Canon lacks and other systems offer, people – in aggregate – would be buying systems other than Canon. So, what effect have the reviews had on Canon’s market share? None.

Personally, I bought an EOS R on day 1 and find it to be a frustrating product in many ways. Ergonomically, it has a great grip, nice EVF and touch-screen, but I find the control layout to be less good than my 7D or even my Fujifilm X-E3. Don't get me started on the Mfn-bar... But, I'm sticking with it (for now) because of the lenses, both EF and the promise of RF, and because it (mostly) does what I need it to do.
So anecdotally, you’ve read the many reviews that ‘objectively make it clear that Canon is behind in several areas’, yet you bought an EOS R and you’re sticking with it. That pretty much sum up the impact of those reviews on buying behavior, doesn’t it?

You and I have obviously chosen Canon, cool, that's why we're here. But shoving sales figures down people's throats isn't proving anything.
It demonstrates the obvious fallacy of statements to the effect that Canon must do X, add feature Y, or improve spec Z or they will ‘not be competitive’, ‘lose sales’, etc. Consider the very first feature you mentioned: “Canon is behind in several areas that folks care about right now: sensor dynamic range...” On average across the lineup, Canon fell behind other brands on low ISO DR starting in 2009, a full decade ago. In 2009, Canon had ~44% ILC market share. Today, they have just under 50% market share. The sales data make it manifestly clear that the majority of ILC buyers do not strongly value low ISO DR. Sorry that you feel stating relevant facts comprises ‘shoving sales figures down people's throats’. Apparently repeated statements that Canon ‘is behind’ and ‘needs to catch up’, in spite of objective evidence to the contrary, are perfectly fine. :unsure::rolleyes: