5DIV price confirmed

[Eldar]

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/

 

[privatebydesign]

Going by shipping documents to India, $3499 is more than twice the value of the camera internally at Canon.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30537.msg616526#msg616526

 

[davidmurray]

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/

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

Going by shipping documents to India, $3499 is more than twice the value of the camera internally at Canon.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30537.msg616526#msg616526

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".

 

[privatebydesign]

...
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".

Good to know that Canon double-dips.

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.

 

[Mikehit]

...
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".

Good to know that Canon double-dips.

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.

 

[eml58]

...
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".

Good to know that Canon double-dips.

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.

 

[Maiaibing]

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/

A little more than I hoped for (3.300$). Of course still a rumor.

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(!).

 

[N2itiv]

I don't do gray market but it will be fun to see how low those importers (into the US) will price. Won't be getting this immediately. CPW might save a couple hundred.

 

[GuyF]

I know this is a mistake, I know, but...

Yup, I guess some people just don't understand capitalism. Of course some businesses are set up deliberately to make a loss but let's not open that can of worms.

 

[rrcphoto]

I know this is a mistake, I know, but...

Yup, I guess some people just don't understand capitalism. Of course some businesses are set up deliberately to make a loss but let's not open that can of worms.

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

 

[rrcphoto]

...
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".

Good to know that Canon double-dips.

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.

I think the term that you are looking for is "wholly owned subsidiary". I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to do this from a business perspective and as a consumer, I don't actually care. It's Canon's problem to deal with and sort out.

What *I* care about is the price Canon decides everyone needs to advertise the goods as being available for and more specifically, that the price should be as low as possible, not as high as possible.

Quite frankly, I'm rather surprised at the defense for Canon's pricing - it's like you all want to willingly give Canon more money. Maybe Canon should set up a "tip jar" web site for you to all give money to Canon from and boast about it?

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.

 

[rrcphoto]

...
it's because the larger channels get dealer discounts. if they are allowed to ADVERTISE the price it hurts the smaller dealers excessively.
...

To summarize, Canon creates a problem and consumers pay for it.

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.

 

[rrcphoto]

...
it's because the larger channels get dealer discounts. if they are allowed to ADVERTISE the price it hurts the smaller dealers excessively.
...

To summarize, Canon creates a problem and consumers pay for it.

MAP doesn't do anything other than enforce advertising.
...

Well if that's all it does then why does Canon enforce it or have it in the first place? If it really doesn't mean or do anything significant then Canon should abolish it, yes?

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.

 

[rrcphoto]

....
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.
...

No, you're being ridiculous. All of these costs are Canon's problem to minimize or eliminate. I want a camera, not a salesman to tell me how good it is. If CPS is a valuable service then people will pay for it - why should the price of CPS be built into my camera if I never use CPS? What it effectively means is that people who never use CPS discount the cost of CPS for those that do.

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?

 

[reef58]

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?

 

[Dverb]

...
Canon USA has to pay for all the local employee salaries, benefits, insurance, buildings, USA federal and state taxes, warranty repair, 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?

I think you're not reading what I'm writing. As I said before, it is Canon's job to minimize all of this - these costs aren't my problem, they're Canon's (and/or the retailer's.) I couldn't care less if Canon outsourced its legal and accounting to India.

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.

 

[M_S]

3499$ vs 3700€ WTF? Taking into account the latest exchange rate 3499$ will make 3102 €. Whats up here? Milking the cow? Or is 3499$ before tax and 3700€ including tax?

 

[weixing]

...
Canon USA has to pay for all the local employee salaries, benefits, insurance, buildings, USA federal and state taxes, warranty repair, 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?

I think you're not reading what I'm writing. As I said before, it is Canon's job to minimize all of this - these costs aren't my problem, they're Canon's (and/or the retailer's.) I couldn't care less if Canon outsourced its legal and accounting to India.

Hi,
Not sure what's the problem, Canon put a price tag on their products and if you think Canon product is overpriced, just don't buy. It's your money and no one is forcing you to buy Canon products.

Have a nice day.

 

[Lesmen27]

3499 dollar means today 3088 euro.
Why retail price 3700 euro for Europe???