Re: Mark III price dropping
RLPhoto said:
jrista said:
RLPhoto said:
jrista said:
RLPhoto said:
I just ordered a MK3 body for 3,099 on evil bay. USA retail, non-grey market. 8)
Its really too bad your supporting
evil bay by buying something they will get at least a 10% fee out of on the seller side, if not more when you factor in the PayPal fees as well. :\ (I really despise ebay these days...
moneygrubbing greedmonsters...meh.)
Oh well, Too bad canon didn't turn out a product that I feel is worth the extra 500$ Retail. :
Well, at least Canon would put that extra $500 to GOOD use! More money to fund better R&D, so that the next sensor they release IS as good as an Exmor, maybe? ;P All eBay will do with it is hire more moneygrubbing greedmonsters to figure out how to stick it to their sellers to and even greater degree! Yay...funding ebay greed...fun....
You bet, Canon would put those 500 Bucks in their pocket! LoL! ;D
Look Canon should have just priced the 5d3 at 2999$ and everything would have been peachy. It would be an equal priced but faster camera to compete with the d800. When an extra 500$ get slammed on top of the other thing's I'll need to run the camera into my workflow, Its just bleh.
I probably would have just purchased the 5D3 at release if it was 2999$. No problemo.
What pocket? Canon isn't just a service like ebay...they CREATE STUFF...they are a manufacturer that produces millions of units a day (at least) of various devices that fuel businesses and the personal creativity of millions (if not hundreds of millions) around the globe. If the argument is that Canon can't sell the 5D III at $3499, I think the numbers falsify that on its face. B&H alone during the pre-order phase received TENS OF THOUSANDS of orders. If we assume that number was
just 10,000, that extra $500 totals an additional 5 million in what your claiming is
extra cost that no one is willing to pay. On top of B&H, you also had thousands of preorders on Adorama, Amazon, etc. There are also all of the sales since the camera actually hit the streets. Were talking, what...a few hundred million extra dollars that consumers have spent on a camera that is supposedly overpriced by $500? I think the consumer collective is reinforcing Canon's research, and the $3499 price is spot on and certainly reasonable, if the numbers have anything to say about it.
Northstar said:
Agree with you again RL....jrista-canon doesn't get the extra $500, the retailer is the entity that is taking the "hit" to their profit. Canon sells cameras at a specific price to retailers, if the retailer doesn't price it at MSRP then the retailer earns less profit. Canon still profits by the same amount whether you buy it at $3500 or $3000.
Also...I totally agree that Canon is overcharging on the 5d3 by $500....I believe the price will decline to $2999 by year end because the demand won't be there at $3500.
Sure, there is certainly a retail markup, however I was illustrating (or trying to illustrate) a point. I would actually be surprised if Canon is wholeselling to retailers at the same cost as Nikon is. Nikon has the benefit of riding on Sony's back from an R&D standpoint...a lucrative alliance to say the least. Canon is a self-contained powerhouse, and I would expect their wholesale to be higher to cover higher R&D costs. So maybe they only get $2500 a camera while Nikon gets $2200 a camera...the customer is ultimately footing the bill.
eBay is a service...they don't produce anything, they rake in money, pay for their infrastructure, and pocket the rest (with, evidently, a healthy budget for figuring out how to rake in ever greater sums of money to the literal and thoroughly (and validly!) bitched about detriment to the very force that keeps them alive...sellers.) Canon is a manufacturer, and they don't just pocket the money they get for each camera sale. First and foremost it has to go to further manufacturing to produce supply to meet demand. Beyond that, while I'm sure there is a fair amount padding the neatly lined pockets of Canon management, a they DO have a healthy budget for R&D of new products. The whole package deal with the 5D III and 1D X are a testament to that...there was a considerable amount of research and development effort put into BOTH cameras, and it certainly wasn't cheap to do.
Buying a 5D III off of eBay (unless its from an eBay merchant that buys direct from Canon in the first place...not sure how you could really tell if thats the case or not) doesn't really fund R&D so that the next camera you buy from Canon
does have a better sensor. It ultimately funds a money-making service that doesn't produce anything, and has for many years now progressively buried the sellers that make eBay a reality under deeper and ever more complicated fee structures, causing many small businesses that were dependent on eBay to simply fold, while greatly eating away at seller profits for anyone else who's stuck around. If you want to demonize a corporation, I'd say eBay is far easier to demonize than Canon...its pretty clear eBay these days (thanks to pretty much zero competition...an ailment that Canon is NOT suffering by any means!) are little more than money grubbing greedy bastards at the best of times, and have little regard for the people who pay all those ridiculous fees and keep them afloat.
At least Canon is a company that produces something, and that helps fuel the creativity of millions. Their products are far from "bad", and while they have lost the edge they held to SoNikon...their sensors, AF capabilities, etc. will improve and become competitive again unless Canon is simply admitting total defeat and giving up entirely (something I doubt whole-heartedly).
