unfocused said: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.
Please define this term precisely. In all seriousness, I don't know what you mean here. To me this word could have any of these definitions:Canon-F1 said:overpriced
x-vision said:overpriced = priced higher than perceived value
Value is certainly subjective.
However, if the next iPhone is priced at $1000, it will be considered as overpriced by most people.
Same for Canon products.
Orangutan said:Please define this term precisely. In all seriousness, I don't know what you mean here. To me this word could have any of these definitions:Canon-F1 said:overpriced
Is it not one of these?
- higher price than I'm willing to pay for it
- higher price than my (hypothetical) customer is willing to pay for it
- artificially high price due to collusion with other companies; i.e., not subject to normal supply/demand market pressures
neuroanatomist said: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..."Radiating said: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".
Radiating said:Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking f/8 AF.
Current iPhone is priced at $1000 in the country where I live, lots of people buy it anywayx-vision said:However, if the next iPhone is priced at $1000, it will be considered as overpriced by most people.
Same for Canon products.
Strong post! +1 on that!Zlatko said:Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount". Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom. And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things. And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms. And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc. It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition. If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced". It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing. ;D
Radiating said:Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking f/8 AF.
Albi86 said:I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.
So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?
It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.
In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.
Albi86 said:I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.
So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?
It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.
In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.
Albi86 said:I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.
So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?
In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.
Orangutan said:Albi86 said:I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.
Sophisms? I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't think anyone is trying to deny "the very existence" of the term. "Overpriced" simply doesn't have any meaning divorced from its context. For example:
- I won't buy a 5D3 at $3500, so it's overpriced for me
- I won't buy a D800 at $2000, so it's also overpriced for me
- for a company like Canon, the term overpriced means they're not selling enough of them to meet their financial goals.
So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?
I won't buy it at that price so it's overpriced for me. Yet people do pay ridiculous amounts of money for restored old cars, even though their intrinsic quality is much lower than would be justified by the cost.
In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.
That means it's overpriced for you. Some people think its qualities do justify the higher cost, therefore it is not overpriced for them.
And what about a manual-focus Zeiss 100mm lens that costs $1800, is that overpriced by your definition? Why or why not? I can tell you that I won't buy it at that price, so it's overpriced for me. There are plenty of wealthy people paying what I consider to be ridiculous amounts of money for Leica manual focus cameras; are those cameras overpriced? I can tell you that they're overpriced for me.
This is simple economics:
- "Overpriced" is a relative term, and cannot reasonably be used without the context. You can't reasonably say "X is overpriced," you must say "X is overpriced for..."
- If you will not buy a product at its current price, then it's overpriced for you
- If someone else will buy a product at its current price, then it's not overpriced for them
- If Canon fails to sell enough of these products at their current price, then it's overpriced for them
brett b said:When you introduce a new product to any market you cannot be certain what the correct price is for that market.
Sales 101 - It is much easier to reduce the price if the market dictates that the launch price is too high than to increase the price if the market dictates it is too low.