Canon EOS R5 launch price will be below $4000 USD [CR3]

May 28, 2020
4
0
currently in cdmx
At the end of the day everyone has to make money to stay in business and Canon is no different. Neither you nor I know the amount of R&D that went into developing this camera, the cost of its ....

If you think making money selling images is very difficult imagine trying to make money selling cameras. If you want a less expensive gadget then just buy a less expensive camera...
Wow dude! D'you actually work for Canon? I'm trying to point out that the market changed dramatically, in order to sell the price has to be right. I'm not talking just about Canon. My kit ain't cheap bruv, I'm just not 100% convinced it's worth all that money. I know a lot of people who think the same way. DSLRs age very quickly, too quickly. It's not about how much you spend but what you get. Camera manufacturers want you to spend 4k+ for a semi-pro body every 4 years; roughly. And now change a system as well. Given the economy, the technology and, most of all, the way people consume photography 4k price tag dramatically limits your sales volume. Higher price will not make up for it. It's simple. If this continues the camera as we know it, DSLR, will extinct because of greed of the likes of Canon.

It should actually be well below 3k. Well below. Producing 7D, 7.5D, 6.25D etc will not help either.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
I'm sure it focusses excellent. However, the 1dX III does not have animal eye or face detect in live view.

And FWIW, I do think that for face or eye tracking, on sensor focussing can surpass what's possible with an OVF. I think we've sort of hit the limit there.
It most certainly does have face detect in LV. Canon calls it "head detect" because it will stay locked on the head of a person even when they spin around so that the face is looking away from the camera.

Those who have used it also say it *does* focus consistently on the eyes of animals, especially when used in Live View. Who cares if the marketing department does or does not give it a certain label, as long as it does what you wish it to do?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
sorry, I meant animal eye and animal face and body detect.
Again, those who actually use the EOS 1D X Mark III to shoot birds and other animals say it locks onto the eyes of birds and animals very consistently in LV. Who cares what the marketing department calls it?
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
Wow dude! D'you actually work for Canon? I'm trying to point out that the market changed dramatically, in order to sell the price has to be right. I'm not talking just about Canon. My kit ain't cheap bruv, I'm just not 100% convinced it's worth all that money. I know a lot of people who think the same way. DSLRs age very quickly, too quickly. It's not about how much you spend but what you get. Camera manufacturers want you to spend 4k+ for a semi-pro body every 4 years; roughly. And now change a system as well. Given the economy, the technology and, most of all, the way people consume photography 4k price tag dramatically limits your sales volume. Higher price will not make up for it. It's simple. If this continues the camera as we know it, DSLR, will extinct because of greed of the likes of Canon.

It should actually be well below 3k. Well below. Producing D7, D7.5, D6.25 etc will not help either.
I definitely do not work for Canon, and I totally get your points that the market changed drastically but I do not get your correlation between the market and the cost of producing the camera. Basically it seems like you are saying the camera should cost $3,000 but with no reference point for your statement. The fact is Canon does produce camera bodies at every price point on the spectrum, so if this one seems overpriced to you then they have plenty of other options to choose from.

For example, if it cost Canon $3600 to make this camera body how could they possibly sell it for $3,000? If it did cost them $3600 to make it (totally theoretical figure by the way) then how would a pandemic, shrinking customer base, shorter camera body lifespan, or any other factor that you mentioned decrease the cost of producing that body to the point to where they could sell it for $3,000?

My two main points are that Canon already has plenty of cheaper bodies (definitely more FF bodies than ever before) and nothing that you have mentioned so far (pandemic, shrinking customer base, faster R&D cycles, etc) would decrease the production cost of the camera.

This is why I bring up the S1H and the cost of the RF lenses when pricing discussions arise. Both Canon and Panasonic know more about the current market realities than everyone on this forum put together yet they still chose to price their products at what can be considered a premium compared to the competition. This is my reference point for stating that they probably simply cannot go any lower without losing money on every sale and is the main reason why I think the R5 will be $3999 at least at launch.

Now what Canon may do is reduce the number of bodies they produce in the future due to the lack of customer revenue, lengthen their R&D times, maybe even just make fewer higher end bodies; to me those would all be more logical responses to the market conditions that you mentioned but for the R5 the production cost is already there and Canon has no choice but to try to recover it which is probably at a price point well above $3K USD.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Hopefully you are and are able to take advantage of B&H’s PayBoo card. Saves me hundreds of dollars a year.
If B&H is absorbing the cost of paying sales tax to states without listing it on the invoice, it's affecting their net revenue generated by the transaction and has to be made up somewhere. They're probably hoping I won't pay the balance off in time and they get to charge me high interest on the unpaid balance. In the end, it seems what they are effectively doing is getting away with charging less than the Canon allowed minimum advertised price!

If Canon sets the minimum advertised price at $1,999 for an item and B&H sells it to me for $1,999 +$159.92 sales tax = $2,158.92 and then rebates me $159.92 on the credit card statement I've sent them $1,999. They'll keep $1,839.08 and send my state $159.92 on their monthly or quarterly sales tax report.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Since the 9 is the speed camera and the 7R is the hi res line, it looks like you reversed your comparisons (the Sony 7 line tops out at 10 fps and the 9 has a max resolution of 24MP).
The α9 also tops out at 10 fps when using a mechanical shutter. 20 FPS is only available with electronic shutter (and the rolling shutter effect) with a fairly short list of Sony lenses. A few other Sony lenses reduce the max frame rate to around 15 fps with electronic shutter. The rest limit the camera to around 10 fps, even when using electronic shutter or when using adapted non-Sony lenses.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Yeah, that's so breathtakingly impressive, given an EOS 5D IV has "only" 30 MP. The option to extract such highly resolved stills from video will blast also fast frame stills shooting into a new era. Mouthwatering in particular for wildlife, I have to say.
At what shutter speed those video frames are being taken? Is that 1/1000s or faster?
One will have to shoot the video with the intention of only using it for frame grabs if they wish to use a "sports rated" exposure time. At 1/1000 second video will look very choppy. If they use "video rated" exposure times/180° shutter angle, then frame grabs will suffer immensely from subject motion blur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
5,055
3,147
Irving, Texas
I definitely do not work for Canon, and I totally get your points that the market changed drastically but I do not get your correlation between the market and the cost of producing the camera. Basically it seems like you are saying the camera should cost $3,000 but with no reference point for your statement. The fact is Canon does produce camera bodies at every price point on the spectrum, so if this one seems overpriced to you then they have plenty of other options to choose from.

For example, if it cost Canon $3600 to make this camera body how could they possibly sell it for $3,000? If it did cost them $3600 to make it (totally theoretical figure by the way) then how would a pandemic, shrinking customer base, shorter camera body lifespan, or any other factor that you mentioned decrease the cost of producing that body to the point to where they could sell it for $3,000?

My two main points are that Canon already has plenty of cheaper bodies (definitely more FF bodies than ever before) and nothing that you have mentioned so far (pandemic, shrinking customer base, faster R&D cycles, etc) would decrease the production cost of the camera.

This is why I bring up the S1H and the cost of the RF lenses when pricing discussions arise. Both Canon and Panasonic know more about the current market realities than everyone on this forum put together yet they still chose to price their products at what can be considered a premium compared to the competition. This is my reference point for stating that they probably simply cannot go any lower without losing money on every sale and is the main reason why I think the R5 will be $3999 at least at launch.

Now what Canon may do is reduce the number of bodies they produce in the future due to the lack of customer revenue, lengthen their R&D times, maybe even just make fewer higher end bodies; to me those would all be more logical responses to the market conditions that you mentioned but for the R5 the production cost is already there and Canon has no choice but to try to recover it which is probably at a price point well above $3K USD.
If anything, in my opinion, the pandemic has increased Canon's costs. Increased losses too. There are always those who scream "GREED!". I'll never understand it. Usually it is those complaining and being greedy... demanding a product for a price they have determined is fair without any knowledge of the company's costs. It makes me laugh every time.

I used to have a son-in-law that would brag about his pirated copies of movies and software he'd bought at a fraction of the retail price for genuine legitimate product. He was always saying that, "those greedy corporations have enough money and they should be giving it away." SMH The guy never could hold a job and was always looking for someone to sue. Glad he's out of the picture.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Well, for sure they are trying to tighten up all the holes...BUT....to date, they have not tightened them up everywhere yet.
:)

And even on Amazon,.....if you buy from 3rd party sellers (not talking just cameras here, but anything) they often still do not charge sales tax, it is primarily only on items sold by Amazon that gets tax added.
I've noticed more and more of the third party sellers on amazon are also beginning to charge sales tax, probably because states have been successfully going after some of the worst offenders in highly publicized cases.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
A week or two ago from B&H....why?

And no...I did not use any sort of Payboo or whatever you're talking about either...used my own CCs....sometimes visa some times Apple Pay, whichever I get the most % cash back with....

But no special cards, no house accounts and no "rebates"...they simply did not charge sales tax, nor did they charge shipping since it was over their min. purchase for free shipping which I think is like $49?
So you are either in one of the five states, covering only 2.5% of the U.S. population between all of them, that have no retail sales tax or you're in one of the remaining six states that have not yet passed legislation requiring out of state retailers to collect some form of sales tax on items shipped to consumers in their state. In either case, you're in the shrinking minority among U.S. citizens.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
"pdbgrafx, post: 833985, member: 15161"

I see where you quoted my comment, but I do not see where you added any sort of reply.

What's your point?
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Obsolete entirely no. High mechanical FPS is required in some applications. Primarily use to increase the odds of "getting the shot". You're talking about consumers and amateurs. Get real. "Any camera can be a sports shooter". Yeah if shooting family or friends and for recreational purposes. I have been shooting professionally assignment and freelance for over two decades. ALL cameras are niche devices. Period. The majority of camera operators that I know, do not solely shoot one and only one genre. Network connection, FPS being the primary reason. And it being supplied and paid for the other reason. To get THE shot. Those that already have name and recognition have the ability to get THE shot regardless if using the 5D or the 1Dx. If you know the sport and the coreographed movements you can get the shot with either device. I know. because I have owned both. When shooting in Rio in 2016, I rarely took the 1dxII to any venues. I rarely returned directly to the hotel following. The hefty 1dx2 was not the item to be with at 2am. The entire start of any world class sprint race is only 0- 20m and only 15 strides. This is within 2.5 seconds including the 110m hurdle touchdown. Yes, the 5dmk3 is capable of getting all those strides from the worlds fastest humans from the blocks to the 20m point. If you know what you're doing and not merely pressing the shutter. As many do (spray & pray). When one is being paid and provided with the device to increase the odds of "getting the shot" and are tasked with shooting multiple events, they chose the 1dx for reliability. Skill, knowledge of the craft and of the event is the equalizer. While assisting in the development of Olympic track coach athletes, I have acquired the skill to get the shot file most easier with knowledge of the correographed & predetermined movements. Either device fits the application. With skill they are interchangeable for the application. Both appropriate for the task. It's done on a regular basis. Professionally.
What a lot of folks who pray and spray at high frame rates fail to consider is that even at 20 fps there are 50 milliseconds between each frame. If the exposure time is 1/1000 then only one millisecond is being exposed for any particular spot on the sensor and it typically only takes about 2.5 milliseconds for the shutter curtains in a top end sports camera such as the 1D X or Nikon D4/5 to transit the entire sensor. The other 47.5 milliseconds between each frame are not recorded at all!

No matter how fast one's frame rate is, it still takes either impeccable timing or blind dumb luck to get THE shot.
 

Quackator

EOS RP
Jul 19, 2011
359
198
Do you find you have to swap lenses often as there is no overlap?
Ask 5 photographers, get 7 opinions.

Shooting live shows and corporate events, I found that the
RF 2.8/15-35mm and the Sigma 1.8/135mm ART, each on
a separate body did everything I needed.

I could leave the rest of the gear literally chained to a wall
and never bothered to get one of the other lenses.

Yes, there is a gap between 35 and 135mm.
I found this to be no problem for me.
Anticipate the action, be there before it happens,
and you need much less zoom in the end.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV : $2,499.00
Canon EOS R: $1,799.00
Sony a7iIV: $3,498.

If Canon R5 is above $3500, it will be a tough sell.
5D Mark IV at launch in 2016: $3,499 USD
EOS R at launch in 2018: $2,299 USD
Sony α7r IV at launch in 2020: $3,499

$3,499 USD in 2016 is worth $3,737.83 USD today.
$2,299 USD in 2018 is worth $2,346.21 USD today.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
IOW, if you are poor it is your fault?

Sorry but you have not seen much of the world if you believe people making poor wages are not trying hard enough.
This is a foundational narrative of the "prosperity gospel" and the moral failure narrative of the poor. Thus we have punitive policies directed at poor families that are allegedly aimed at "incentivizing" them to greater effort when in fact serve to add more pain to a family already struggling. It erects barriers to education, health care, mental health and the other opportunities taken for granted by the more fortunate.
On the other hand, "much of the world" was not included in a conversation about how much wait staff in the U.S. are compensated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
the thing is the start up price is irrelevant as supply will be less than demand and people like me never buy in the first year anyway and its not just cost, i want to make sure its ok first as i am not sending back for fixes
Well, sort of. But as long as demand outstrips supply, the introductory price will rule. If production issues last well into 2021, then they'll still be getting the introductory list price when you might be ready to buy.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
That is a Trumpian “alternative fact,” i.e., a bare-faced lie.
I've worked in situations where people were giving maximum effort and producing effective results and still weren't getting paid what they should.

I've also worked in situations where people were either not cut out for a specific job or refused to give much of any effort and then liked to blame everyone else except themselves for their failure.

Sometimes it is true that people bring unwanted consequences onto themselves due to bad decisions they make.
Sometimes it is true that unwanted consequences are forced on people no matter how much effort they put forth.

Just because one happens in some places does not mean that the other doesn't happen in other places.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Both Adorama and B&H have collected tax from me. I'm in CA. But regardless of whether vendor collects the tax or not, you still have to report and pay at the end of the year.
If the vendor collects tax from you, then you do not have to pay it again, do you? Isn't the receipt more or less documentation of a tax credit that you've already paid in that regard?