Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

[Loswr]

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 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".

Did you miss the fact that Canon added f/8 AF to the 1D X via a firmware update, just 4 months after the camera hit the streets? How much money did Canon make from that firmware update? So...either you made up that conversation, or you talked to some junior lackey with no clue about Canon's business operations. "Hello, Canon 800-number operator, please put me through to the guy who washes the dishes in the commissary, I have important economic questions..."

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?

I'm an economic analyst....

The easiest way I can explain this is that this means that you just essentially paid $14,000 for your 5D Mark III...

So...if I buy a 5DIII, will it cost me $2,050 or $14,000? As an economic analyst, do you often make predictions for the same indicator that vary by 683%? Maybe you're the guy at S&P who made the $2 trillion mistake? Actually, given the laughter that resulted from reading your error-ridden troll posts, I suspect you're not a real economic analyst at all, but rather a stand up comic. Ba-dum-bum-ching.

 

[Rick]

I am sure every witty and not so witty quip has been made in 13 pages of posts so I will take the opportunity to say that your numbers are wrong in the first place. Using eBay seller prices who are moving gray market cameras is wrong headed.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm writing this post mainly to criticize Canon for it's recent outrageous pricing policies, and to simply say that they cannot keep doing what they are doing.

I was one of the first people to support Canon's new higher pricing due to the yen/dollar conversion, which in a way justified it, but now Canon seems to be actively trying to destabilize the market for their gear and alienate all of their customers.

The specific issue I am talking about are the huge price cuts and markups on their older and newer bodies.

Let's talk the last 3 months because this is the most relevant time frame.

3 months ago, buying a new 5D Mark III for $3400 was a bargain, and buying a new 5D Mark II for $2050 was a bargain, and buying a T4i for $750 was a bargain. So I got my 5DIII & 5D II (but waited on the t4i)

How much are these cameras worth 3 months later? $2500, $1300, & $480, and I picked up a new T4i for $480 today.

That's $1920. Gone in 3 months. In depreciation. On $6000 of cameras.

Let's compare Nikon on the other hand. 3 months ago, the D800 new for $2800 was a bargain, now it's a bargain for $2450. With the Nikon D700, 3 months ago it went for $1650, now it's $1550, the D7000 went for $860, 3 months ago and now it's $780.

That's only $520 in depreciation. Which is nearly 4 times less than $1920.

Wow.

This means I could theoretically own nearly 12 Nikon bodies for what it costs to own 3 Canon ones with their new insane mark ups and mark downs.

Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.

Considering this insanity, I just don't feel comfortable buying any Canon gear any more. Based on this trend, the 24-70mm Mark II should hit $1600 by March, and then it's perfectly believable that when the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS Macro comes out, the 24-105mm which now sells for $750 will be sold for $520 within weeks or months from now. The 35mm f/2.0 IS which I was also interested in which goes for $849.99 now should go for $499 in March as well.

Canon may think themselves smart for playing pricing games, but they are trading brand loyalty and credibility for profit, which is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Many of us who bought 5D MK III at 3499 needed that camera ... we do not care if Canon decides to drop the price after a few months, so many others can also buy them. From what I can understand in your post is that you could have waited for the price to drop and did not really need the camera when you purchased it ... but if you really needed the 5D MK III and bought it at $3499, you have nothing to crib about. Canon are smarter than you think, they sold 5D MK III for $3499 because they knew that there was a demand and sure enough they were right. The official price drop for 5D MK III is only $500 ... you cannot blame Canon if some grey market outlets or limited special deals are selling it for a lot less.
Moral of the story: next time do not buy things when you don't need them. But if you do need something and paid a premium for being one of the first few to get it, then do not crib.

 

[sanj]

I'm writing this post mainly to criticize Canon for it's recent outrageous pricing policies, and to simply say that they cannot keep doing what they are doing.

I was one of the first people to support Canon's new higher pricing due to the yen/dollar conversion, which in a way justified it, but now Canon seems to be actively trying to destabilize the market for their gear and alienate all of their customers.

The specific issue I am talking about are the huge price cuts and markups on their older and newer bodies.

Let's talk the last 3 months because this is the most relevant time frame.

3 months ago, buying a new 5D Mark III for $3400 was a bargain, and buying a new 5D Mark II for $2050 was a bargain, and buying a T4i for $750 was a bargain. So I got my 5DIII & 5D II (but waited on the t4i)

How much are these cameras worth 3 months later? $2500, $1300, & $480, and I picked up a new T4i for $480 today.

That's $1920. Gone in 3 months. In depreciation. On $6000 of cameras.

Let's compare Nikon on the other hand. 3 months ago, the D800 new for $2800 was a bargain, now it's a bargain for $2450. With the Nikon D700, 3 months ago it went for $1650, now it's $1550, the D7000 went for $860, 3 months ago and now it's $780.

That's only $520 in depreciation. Which is nearly 4 times less than $1920.

Wow.

This means I could theoretically own nearly 12 Nikon bodies for what it costs to own 3 Canon ones with their new insane mark ups and mark downs.

Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.

Considering this insanity, I just don't feel comfortable buying any Canon gear any more. Based on this trend, the 24-70mm Mark II should hit $1600 by March, and then it's perfectly believable that when the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS Macro comes out, the 24-105mm which now sells for $750 will be sold for $520 within weeks or months from now. The 35mm f/2.0 IS which I was also interested in which goes for $849.99 now should go for $499 in March as well.

Canon may think themselves smart for playing pricing games, but they are trading brand loyalty and credibility for profit, which is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Many of us who bought 5D MK III at 3499 needed that camera ... we do not care if Canon decides to drop the price after a few months, so many others can also buy them. From what I can understand in your post is that you could have waited for the price to drop and did not really need the camera when you purchased it ... but if you really needed the 5D MK III and bought it at $3499, you have nothing to crib about. Canon are smarter than you think, they sold 5D MK III for $3499 because they knew that there was a demand and sure enough they were right. The official price drop for 5D MK III is only $500 ... you cannot blame Canon if some grey market outlets or limited special deals are selling it for a lot less.
Moral of the story: next time do not buy things when you don't need them. But if you do need something and paid a premium for being one of the first few to get it, then do not crib.

"Needed" the 5d3???

 

[Rienzphotoz]

"Needed" the 5d3???

Yes!

 

[sanj]

 

[victorwol]

I'm writing this post mainly to criticize Canon for it's recent outrageous pricing policies, and to simply say that they cannot keep doing what they are doing.

I was one of the first people to support Canon's new higher pricing due to the yen/dollar conversion, which in a way justified it, but now Canon seems to be actively trying to destabilize the market for their gear and alienate all of their customers.

The specific issue I am talking about are the huge price cuts and markups on their older and newer bodies.

Let's talk the last 3 months because this is the most relevant time frame.

3 months ago, buying a new 5D Mark III for $3400 was a bargain, and buying a new 5D Mark II for $2050 was a bargain, and buying a T4i for $750 was a bargain. So I got my 5DIII & 5D II (but waited on the t4i)

How much are these cameras worth 3 months later? $2500, $1300, & $480, and I picked up a new T4i for $480 today.

That's $1920. Gone in 3 months. In depreciation. On $6000 of cameras.

Let's compare Nikon on the other hand. 3 months ago, the D800 new for $2800 was a bargain, now it's a bargain for $2450. With the Nikon D700, 3 months ago it went for $1650, now it's $1550, the D7000 went for $860, 3 months ago and now it's $780.

That's only $520 in depreciation. Which is nearly 4 times less than $1920.

Wow.

This means I could theoretically own nearly 12 Nikon bodies for what it costs to own 3 Canon ones with their new insane mark ups and mark downs.

Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.

Considering this insanity, I just don't feel comfortable buying any Canon gear any more. Based on this trend, the 24-70mm Mark II should hit $1600 by March, and then it's perfectly believable that when the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS Macro comes out, the 24-105mm which now sells for $750 will be sold for $520 within weeks or months from now. The 35mm f/2.0 IS which I was also interested in which goes for $849.99 now should go for $499 in March as well.

Canon may think themselves smart for playing pricing games, but they are trading brand loyalty and credibility for profit, which is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Many of us who bought 5D MK III at 3499 needed that camera ... we do not care if Canon decides to drop the price after a few months, so many others can also buy them. From what I can understand in your post is that you could have waited for the price to drop and did not really need the camera when you purchased it ... but if you really needed the 5D MK III and bought it at $3499, you have nothing to crib about. Canon are smarter than you think, they sold 5D MK III for $3499 because they knew that there was a demand and sure enough they were right. The official price drop for 5D MK III is only $500 ... you cannot blame Canon if some grey market outlets or limited special deals are selling it for a lot less.
Moral of the story: next time do not buy things when you don't need them. But if you do need something and paid a premium for being one of the first few to get it, then do not crib.

I totally agree... It happens with everything, offer and demand.... They can do it because they have demand for the product, I remember it was even difficult to get one... If you are dropping Canon just because of that, then may be you can do it, sell all your glass and bodies, lose more money on the operation, and buy all new again from Nikon... And see it dropping in price too... At the end you might even lose more money. Clever? Or just angry?

 

[FatDaddyJones]

As I said before... We're beating a dead horse.

 

[jrh]

"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. "[/quote]

Congratulations on making it to 10th grade.

Quick life lesson, when a person has to start throwing around their credentials or education because their words leave people questioning their credibility and knowledge you are not in a good spot. As the saying goes, better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

 

[unfocused]

Many of us who bought 5D MK III at 3499 needed that camera ... we do not care if Canon decides to drop the price after a few months, so many others can also buy them. From what I can understand in your post is that you could have waited for the price to drop and did not really need the camera when you purchased it ... but if you really needed the 5D MK III and bought it at $3499, you have nothing to crib about. Canon are smarter than you think, they sold 5D MK III for $3499 because they knew that there was a demand and sure enough they were right. The official price drop for 5D MK III is only $500 ... you cannot blame Canon if some grey market outlets or limited special deals are selling it for a lot less.
Moral of the story: next time do not buy things when you don't need them. But if you do need something and paid a premium for being one of the first few to get it, then do not crib.

One of the best posts on this thread.

Just one quibble however: the official price drop for the 5DIII is not $500. At least not in the U.S. I think Canon would argue there has been no official price drop. However, given that they have offered a never-ending rebate of $200, I think one could legitimately say the "official" price drop is $200.

All other price drops have been driven by individual retailers, who are reacting to the market.

The reality (which I cannot understand how the OP, who claims to have some knowledge of economics, cannot understand) is that Canon is at the mercy of the marketplace. If the 5DIII has fallen in price since its introduction, it is not because of Canon, it is because the market has determined that the fair price is different than what Canon set as its target price.

This is one of the the things that real economists refer to when they talk of the magic of the marketplace. In a capitalistic world, Canon gets to ask for any price they choose, but buyers then get to tell them "yes" or "no." It appears that a significant number of buyers have said "no" and retailers (the front-line soldiers of capitalism) have responded with price cuts. I can't imagine why anyone, outside of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists, would object.

 

[unfocused]

As I said before... We're beating a dead horse.

Beating? I think this poor equine has been pulverized into dust.

 

[ChilledXpress]

As I said before... We're beating a dead horse.

Beating? I think this poor equine has been pulverized into dust.

I'm sure some here are now snorting that dust.... yummm, can you feel the equine high !!!!! ???

 

[David Hull]

"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant.

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?

Well, while you are "imagining"... the reality is that I paid $3000 for my 5DIII so I guess the cost of ownership would be closer to 1700 across 5 years or $340 per year. At that time I would have paid the same for the D800 and could probably sell it at the end of 5 years for about the same $1300 so it looks like a wash to me.

And... regardless of how many Nikons I could or could not buy -- they would all have the one fatal flaw that seems to persist with all Nikon camera bodies which is their stubborn refusal to incorporate an EOS lens mount. That means that the real cost of ownership (given that I have no interest in running dual systems) is quite a bit more. Even if I were willing to run dual systems, I would have to equip the Nikon body with lenses and flashes (and for a D800, this would need to be Nikon’s “L” equivalents which aren’t cheap). I did the complete switch calculation when the D800 first came out and it was looking like I would have spent somewhere north of $5000 to swap everything over so that adds an additional $1000 per year across 5 years.

Given that the D800 brings nothing to the game except a bit of additional resolution (which I don’t need) and some additional DR (which would be nice but is really only realizable at ISO 100), for me the Nikon does not look that attractive.

 

[lola]

For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

 

[brett b]

Per Radiating:
"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant."

"I could personally care less about their pricing games, I make enough to buy hundreds Canon pro bodies a year and have enough left over to live comfortably after throwing those in the trash, but I think it's worth taking note of this craziness."


My math says that in order to by hundreds of 1Dx bodies (lets just say 200), it would cost $1,359,800. I would like to be able to throw $1.3 million in the trash each year and still live comfortably on what I earn.

Therefore...I've decided to go back to school to become an economic analyst.

 

[kubelik]

As I said before... We're beating a dead horse.

Beating? I think this poor equine has been pulverized into dust.

I'm sure some here are now snorting that dust.... yummm, can you feel the equine high !!!!! ???

haha chilledx, I thought this thread was weird already but, man, you took it to a whole 'nother level

 

[Cannon Man]

Per Radiating:
"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant."

"I could personally care less about their pricing games, I make enough to buy hundreds Canon pro bodies a year and have enough left over to live comfortably after throwing those in the trash, but I think it's worth taking note of this craziness."


My math says that in order to by hundreds of 1Dx bodies (lets just say 200), it would cost $1,359,800. I would like to be able to throw $1.3 million in the trash each year and still live comfortably on what I earn.

Therefore...I've decided to go back to school to become an economic analyst.

Maybe he meant he could buy 900 pro bodies a year comfortably ("hundreds"). He would make $6,119,100 every year to throw away.
LOL he makes a lot of money. if that's to throw away how much does he need first to make him comfortable? 25 million a year? He must be an economic analyst for apple. Damnnn.

 

[chris_w_digits]

I bought a 5D Mark III back on October 4, 2012 while the list price was still $3499 and was able to get a 10 percent discount and have taken 8469 photos with it already. I do not regret buying it at all and don't consider myself "screwed over" since I knew the price was going to drop more as with any product of that nature. I've gotten lots of low-light shots of bands that would not have been nearly as good and noise free as if I'd kept using the Rebel T2i for the past 3 months. The 70-200 f 2.8 L (non IS version) is now my most versatile, most often used lens (for both medium shots and facial close-ups) where before, I was switching between the Sigma 85mm f1.4 for medium shots and the Canon 135mm f2 L for facial close-ups constantly. This is my first comment so hopefully I'll be able to update the camera field on my profile from "Canonflex".

 

[unfocused]

For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Actually, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Consumers have their choice of five very similar lenses available in a range of prices. Canon is not only competing with other lens makers for our dollars, they are competing with themselves. We get to choose based on needs and affordability. That is a win for consumers.

 

[ChilledXpress]

For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Look who is snorting the equine dust now... not even the same topic or the OP's original comment