jrh said:
"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant.
I think everyone here is horribly missing the point and this sort of ignorance is what lets these companies avoid initial backlash."
Really, an economic analyst who doesn't know the difference of depreciation and market value as you posted earlier!?! Maybe you can explain why Canon's stock valuation has gone up 24.61% in the last 3 months??? I think A LOT of real economic analyst's would disagree with your assessment... but everyone seems to agree you are making an ass out of yourself.
You know you have to be a real peice of work to try to insult someone who went to school for 10 years in 4 words with such certainty.
If you actually talk to Canon USA's internal folks (which I do because I take photography way too seriously as a hobby) you'll notice that they speak a lot more about marketing and economics. Whenever they talk about a product they are always talking from a market perspective. "Q:why did the 5d Mk III take so long to come out? A: Because knew we could keep selling the 5D Mk II, it was actually ready last year, but we just let it sit on the shelf until now, same with the 24-70mm Mk II" "Q:Why don't you release a updated 1Dx with f/8 AF points, A: because people will buy our cameras regardless, we aren't going to implement a feature if it's not going to be a money maker".
If you talk to the same Nikon reps you instead get the impression that they are actually trying to make the best product. "Q: Why are your lenses backwards compatible with 30 year old technology? A: Because we don't want to leave out photographers with older lenses".
Canon seemingly does not care about their clients, they care about making money and marketing, or more over exploiting the market, or so it would seem.
There's a popular economic theory that goes against most people's preconceptions of capitalism that has been backed up by numerous studies that shows that companies that have a corporate culture of expoiting customers tend to fare worse in terms of long term growth compared to companies that try to serve their customers. Think Apple as a prime example of companies that serve their customers and experience significant growth (this is regardless of price level and market dirupting products).
David Hull said:
I couldn't have said THAT better myself. I bought my 5DII for 2700, used it for 5 years, sold it for 1400. It seems that the cost of ownership was 1300. I read that guy's post and wondered what the heck he must be smoking.
Let's imagine that you purchased your 5D Mk. III at Canon's new markup and price slashing policy. That would mean you paid $3350 a few months ago and should sell it for $1300 in 5 years.
If you use historical pricing for the D700 as an indicator for the D800, then you'd pay $2700 for the body and sell it for $1700, as per the post release body pricing, and 5 year price based on the D700.
D800 cost of ownership = $1000
The 5D3 cost of ownership =$2050
Now, tell me how many Nikons you can own for the cost of ownership of 1 Canon over 5 years?
