R5 Release Price. Just for fun.

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,891
1,693
I'd love to see a week go by here without all the petty correcting that we must endure by those with perfection, one-upmanship and whatever other DSM-5 Section ll issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Optics Patent

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I was going to say $3499 and holding at least at $3299 through end of year sales.

This is the one I hoped for (better, actually) when switching from Nikon late last year. At any plausible price I’m buying. $4500 isn’t plausible in my opinion and even if production costs were high I suspect Canon would rather capture market share and lose money on early sales to keep the price at $3999 or below.

Under $3000 is also implausible.

The market take is looking at Sony A9 for $4500 and A7 for $3500. This feels like it’s drawing customers considering either of those. Especially those on the fence between the two. The R5 might not beat either of them at their own game but it trounces each in the other’s game. 45Mp at those frame rates is an all around winner. Given that, $3999 is very supportable. $3499 makes it a Sony killer
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
562
396
I was going to say $3499 and holding at least at $3299 through end of year sales.

This is the one I hoped for (better, actually) when switching from Nikon late last year. At any plausible price I’m buying. $4500 isn’t plausible in my opinion and even if production costs were high I suspect Canon would rather capture market share and lose money on early sales to keep the price at $3999 or below.

Under $3000 is also implausible.

The market take is looking at Sony A9 for $4500 and A7 for $3500. This feels like it’s drawing customers considering either of those. Especially those on the fence between the two. The R5 might not beat either of them at their own game but it trounces each in the other’s game. 45Mp at those frame rates is an all around winner. Given that, $3999 is very supportable. $3499 makes it a Sony killer
This seems like fairly solid logic, which is unfortunate. This is very likely the full frame camera I've been waiting for, but I can't justify that kind of money.

The only way I see them going lower is if the production cost turns out to be super low, so they can just wipe the floor with everyone else by bringing it out well below $3K. But I don't find that plausible either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Laslen

5D Mark III
Oct 18, 2014
31
65
The market take is looking at Sony A9 for $4500 and A7 for $3500. This feels like it’s drawing customers considering either of those. Especially those on the fence between the two. The R5 might not beat either of them at their own game but it trounces each in the other’s game.
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.

If they price R5 higher than $3299, they're repeating old mistakes. One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs, and it's the main reason A7III killed everything else in the FF market in the past 2 years. Canon's RF lenses already sell for a hefty premium, and if they start charging $4000+ for MILCs that aren't even flagship level, they're just being greedy. It would be a huge mistake that I'd rather not see them make. Sony forums are also banking on the R5 being ridiculously expensive, because they know it will stop people from jumping to Canon.

Being overpriced (along with the RF lenses that arguably already are) will also make EF users apprehensive about jumping to mirrorless. Or it might drive them to Sony, which is what this camera is supposed to prevent.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,062
I'd love to see a week go by here without all the petty correcting that we must endure by those with perfection, one-upmanship and whatever other DSM-5 Section ll issues.
Sorry, but it was an honest question. I was wondering if "BW" was something similar to "CPW" that I'd not heard of.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.

If they price R5 higher than $3299, they're repeating old mistakes. One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs, and it's the main reason A7III killed everything else in the FF market in the past 2 years. Canon's RF lenses already sell for a hefty premium, and if they start charging $4000+ for MILCs that aren't even flagship level, they're just being greedy. It would be a huge mistake that I'd rather not see them make. Sony forums are also banking on the R5 being ridiculously expensive, because they know it will stop people from jumping to Canon.

Being overpriced (along with the RF lenses that arguably already are) will also make EF users apprehensive about jumping to mirrorless. Or it might drive them to Sony, which is what this camera is supposed to prevent.
I was referring to the newest model of each.

I expect a company to seek to maximize profits and shareholder value. Some might call that greed. I’m simply speculating how they might price this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethanz and pj1974

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
623
99
Adelaide, Australia
We do not have many of the standard specifications that come with a ‘product release’, let alone a ‘product announcement’. The limited official information about the R5 available to us means is somewhat likely our guesses are going to be hit and miss. :cautious:
Therefore, I am providing a big caveat on the R5 hypothesised recommended retail price (RRP). There could be some features in the R5 that will have a bit impact and influence on the market price (i.e. what consumers will be willing to pay for it). I am listing prices in USD (US Dollars $).

The 20fps / 12fps shutter speed spec, as well as the “8k” video information are big drawcards in terms of customer interest as well as shaping market segmentation (where the product line sits relative to other camera bodies). However even within these aspects, there are details we do not know – does AF/AE work at either 20fps and/or 12fps. What type of video is captured and/or output at 8k resolution? The image quality of the sensor (dynamic range, colour, megapixels), other features and functionality of the camera could influence the market price markedly.

Given that I see the R5 being closely aligned to the 5D DSLR product line, I see it potentially selling for around $3,400-$3,800. Being the first of a new line, and with seemingly good specs, it could initially be priced higher than we might otherwise expect. However the M6mkII shows encouraging signs, that Canon now have more capable technology to push the envelope in relation to mirrorless capability. The M6mkII RRP is $849, which does not include the optional EVF or a lens. The R5 will have an EVF built in. ;)

If the camera comes out at around $3600 USD by about mid 2020, then I expect by end of 2021 the price will decrease to around $3200 (on sales). I hope it will be a camera that I find worth the money in the long term. The initial specs interest me. I look forward to what Canon will come out with.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
677
407
But how many people are going to be in a position where the price of the camera drives the decision? There aren't going to be a lot of first time buyers at this level, so one question is how the new camera fits with what they have and what are perceived to be the most important features of the cameras. At that price level, I would think that most buyers are looking for the right camera for them, not the least expensive choice.
By your logic, the price of the camera doesn't matter, so Canon should just make it $15,000, and make boatloads of money on it because the price of the camera doesn't drive the decision, as you said.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
By your logic, the price of the camera doesn't matter, so Canon should just make it $15,000, and make boatloads of money on it because the price of the camera doesn't drive the decision, as you said.
I didn’t read his words that way at all. I agree with him that many of those shopping in this range might be indifferent to a marginal change in price within a plausible range (now I’m paraphrasing him, hopefully accurately).

But that reasonable principle of elasticity of demand (inelasticity in this case) can’t be taken to absurd extremes. Not good logic.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,891
1,693
Does anyone have data on Canon's pricing structure in the past say 20 years and how it aligned with competing products? Have they undercut? Has there been little correlation? I think the most reliable way of looking at price on the R5 is to compare the 5D series yet that too may be just s stab in the dark as we're in new territory here. Some folks keep wanting to say how Canon will never change but you cannot deny there might be a paradigm shift going on.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
677
407
I didn’t read his words that way at all. I agree with him that many of those shopping in this range might be indifferent to a marginal change in price within a plausible range (now I’m paraphrasing him, hopefully accurately).

But that reasonable principle of elasticity of demand (inelasticity in this case) can’t be taken to absurd extremes. Not good logic.
Your wording is full of wishy washy terms... "Many" shopping in this range might be indifferent to "marginal" changes in price?

Listen either the price matters, or it doesn't. You can't say "oh well $50 or $100 doesn't matter, but of course several thousand dollars does." Of the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who may buy this camera, every dollar you raise the price may alienate one more customer just enough to not buy it. Without having extensive data and a lot of determination to research it all, I really have no clue how many sales raising a flagship camera price $50 costs, but I guarantee it has some effect on sales.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.

If they price R5 higher than $3299, they're repeating old mistakes. One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs, and it's the main reason A7III killed everything else in the FF market in the past 2 years. Canon's RF lenses already sell for a hefty premium, and if they start charging $4000+ for MILCs that aren't even flagship level, they're just being greedy. It would be a huge mistake that I'd rather not see them make. Sony forums are also banking on the R5 being ridiculously expensive, because they know it will stop people from jumping to Canon.

Being overpriced (along with the RF lenses that arguably already are) will also make EF users apprehensive about jumping to mirrorless. Or it might drive them to Sony, which is what this camera is supposed to prevent.
The EF users will adopt higher than 5DIV price just fine. The moment 12fps, 45Mp resolution rig lands on the market, cash register will go absolutely full speed at Canon. They won’t reduce price below the 5DIV levels. They may consider throwing in EF - RF adaptor, build bundles to sell more goods at once
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I actually suspect we agree overall, and are just framing the issue differently..

Your wording is full of wishy washy terms... "Many" shopping in this range might be indifferent to "marginal" changes in price?
People are different, of course. Everyone has their own demand curve, or price threshold. Economics is wishy-washy, especially when we're guessing without data about market demand from a wide range of people we've never met.

Listen either the price matters, or it doesn't.
Depends on the buyer. We might actually agree that price ALWAYS matters, but to widely varying degrees.

You can't say "oh well $50 or $100 doesn't matter, but of course several thousand dollars does."
Yes I can. For some, a price difference of $100 doesn't affect their purchase decision (also true among those who will not buy no matter whether there are small price reductions). This presumes we are starting at some plausible price arrived at with common sense looking at the market. Which is a fair caveat since Canon has a long history of not offering absurd pricing. What happens out at the obvious extremes is unhelpful to real companies establishing pricing.

Of the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who may buy this camera, every dollar you raise the price may alienate one more customer just enough to not buy it. Without having extensive data and a lot of determination to research it all, I really have no clue how many sales raising a flagship camera price $50 costs, but I guarantee it has some effect on sales.
I entirely agree with this. Especially the part about none of us having any of the data to make this call. People who have the data will make decisions your way, no doubt. People like us who lack the data make our guesses based on our own "facts." Like me pointing out how some (maybe not many) are indifferent to small price differences. In my case, the response to a $500 bump from the hypothetical optimistic consensus of $3500 would be indifference (plus pleasure at having called it), which a $1000 bump to $4500 would introduce "resistance". And like everyone, I'm surely not typical. But like everyone, I'm biased to assume that many others are like me.
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,049
One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs,
I think it depends on the quality (and cost) of the EVF you would find acceptable for your main camera. I won't be surprised (nor hesitant) to pay a $500 more for an EVF that is much closer to the quality of a FF OVF than the EOS R one.

If we are talking about backup or crash cameras, that's another story, but I don't think it would be the main niche for the R5.