You registered today with 1 post.
You trolling? If you are then CR should block your IP block. ;-)
Upvote
0
Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
You trolling? If you are then CR should block your IP block. ;-)
Reading comprehension might not be your strong suit so I will help you out
@dolina Said Canon has release 5 RF FF Cameras in 4 years - RP, R, R6, R5 and R3 that is 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5!!!! @dolina also said Canon released 2 APS-C RF Cameras in the same timeline R7 and R10 that is 1 and 2!!!
@dolina reported that Sony has released 9 FF Cameras From 2018 to 2022
Sony a7R III
Sony a7 III
Sony a7R IV
Sony a9 II
Sony a7S III
Sony a7C
Sony a1
Sony a7 IV
Sony FX3
If you include the Sony a7R IVA and Sony a7R IIIA that is 11 so a little off but pretty spot on. Then again the EOS RA was not included by @dolina so saying over half remains accurate.
Sony APS-C Releases in the same timeframe
Sony ZV-E10
Sony a6100
Sony a6600
Sony a6400
All of this information can be viewed at - https://www.dpreview.com/products/timeline?year=all&brand=Sony&category=slrs
Cheers
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course not. I shall look for links that are not fresh enough for the pedantic to nitpick
Upvote
0
That's your argument? Pointing out your misinformation is trolling?
I'm doing pretty fine with reading, thank you for your concern. @dolina has clearly stated the reason for Sony having 9 FF bodies was the fact they had 12 years to do so. If it was a 4-year comparison then what would be the purpose of mentioning the year 2010? And how does the same thing not apply to the count of native e-mount lenses mentioned? It's clear they think Sony has actually released 9 FF and 4 APS bodies over 12 years, which is just plain ignorant.
I see not much has changed over the years in terms of debate quality at CR, so I'm not surprised criticism of a flawed argument meets with insults and passive aggression. I'm not gonna bother you guys, keep the echo chamber strong. Good day
Upvote
0
I know you have crawled back into the hole you climbed out of but since you missed it AGAIN have another look at what was writtenThat's your argument? Pointing out your misinformation is trolling?
I'm doing pretty fine with reading, thank you for your concern. @dolina has clearly stated the reason for Sony having 9 FF bodies was the fact they had 12 years to do so. If it was a 4-year comparison then what would be the purpose of mentioning the year 2010? And how does the same thing not apply to the count of native e-mount lenses mentioned? It's clear they think Sony has actually released 9 FF and 4 APS bodies over 12 years, which is just plain ignorant.
I see not much has changed over the years in terms of debate quality at CR, so I'm not surprised criticism of a flawed argument meets with insults and passive aggression. I'm not gonna bother you guys, keep the echo chamber strong. Good day
"Making that little, in the 4 years of RF system they have released"
It is the group of words just before pointing out the number of RF FF and APS-C Canon has released compared to Sony...
Upvote
0
I wonder how long before Canon get hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Seems a bit of a monopoly. I'm not a lawyer but looks that way.
Upvote
0
Yep your not a lawyer... all brands protect their IP.
Have look at how many times Sony has sued for patent infringement or Nikon vs Shigma(NOT Sigma) in 2014 or Nikon vs Red which is ongoing.
Antitrust...
Upvote
0
I'm not so sure. The 28-70 is nearly 3k. To call it overpriced, I'd have to know what Canon's costs are to make a factual claim like that. Sans that, it's just opinion.
What is the profit margin on that lens that you'd think is fair? Fair to me would be the highest possible price for sustained good sales growth.
Some consumers might think it overpriced. From Canon's perspective, it might be under priced based on their costs. I think the prices are fair, especially for what those exotic lenses can do. There's nothing quite like tack sharp f/1.2.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass.
BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities
- Sony's 2.8 GM Trinity = $7294.00
- Nikon's 2.8's trinity = $7590.85
- Canon's trinity = $7497.99
Big Primes:
Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens = $11998.00
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens = 11999.00
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Lens = 13996.95
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What a product should be priced at really has nothing to do with the production costs. The optimal price point from the perspective of the corporation is the point on the demand curve where the quantity demanded at that price will result in the most total revenue. As the price increases along the curve the quantity demanded is reduced, but at every point the quantity demanded multiplied by the price is the total revenue generated. The calculation of where the price point should be to maximize revenue is mostly based on the features of the product and its relative demand in the market place and is basically independent of production cost.
Where the production cost is relevant is, once that optimal price point has been selected (based on demand), then the resulting margins at that price point will determine the profit (production cost being one factor in the resulting margin).
Upvote
0
"Fair to me would be the highest possible price for sustained sales growth."
The other things I said were an attempt to draw out belief, or not, in the morality of profit. I never said production costs were the sole arbiter of anything. I was more looking for a motive in thinking.
Upvote
0
Here in the UK the f2.8 holy trinities costThat is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass.
BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities
When you compare 1st party glass that is of the same aperture and is no more than 4 years old "Overpriced" moniker labeled on RF glass is pretty weak.
- Sony's 2.8 GM Trinity = $7294.00
- Nikon's 2.8's trinity = $7590.85
- Canon's trinity = $7497.99
Canon - 15-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7437
Sony - 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £6697
Nikon - 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7397
To A LOT of shooters all of those options are overpriced or they appreciate the value of those options but simply can’t afford them. So for those people what can they do?
On Sony they can build an alternative f2.8 trinities with 3rd party glass that are more than good enough for the needs and wants of professionals and enthusiasts.
Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 DG DN - £1299
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN - £1049
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 = £1149
Total = £3497
Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 = £849
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 = £849
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 = £1149
Total = £2847
Nikon will have their own lower cost alternative f2.8 trinity once their 70-180mm f2.8 arrives.
On Canon there are no alternatives natively so its adapting EF glass which for some is a perfect solution but for others it won’t be.
Again the issue for many isn’t that Canon has the high end high cost glass. Its the fact that natively there aren’t any alternatives available even from Canon themselves.
Upvote
0
Canon’s UK pricing is a subject of frequent complaints, as it is higher than elsewhere in the world and Sony/Nikon don’t do that.
I wonder about the trinity price comparison if grey market HK imports were considered.
Again, Canon doesn’t seem to care, and the business case suggests keeping the RF mount closed is the right position for them.
But to be clear, you mean cheaper alternatives for the lenses you want. Show us a zoom trinity for Sony or Nikon FF spanning 15-400mm that’s cheaper than US$1500 / £1850.
Upvote
0
Excellent post and all facts that Canon is overpriced for us outside the US and here’s the Aus pricing for the f/2.8 zoom trinity:
Sony = $8138.00
Canon = $10505.00
Nikon = $9573.00
Now just to make it interesting for those who see EF as a ‘viable alternative’ for third parties, for AUD the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 III cost the following not including adapter (adding to the bulk)
EF = $9262
Now this really puts it all into perspective and I can see why EF is such an great alternative to third parties on Sony and Nikon
Upvote
0
In Australia the f/2.8 zoom trinityThat is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass.
BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities
When you compare 1st party glass that is of the same aperture and is no more than 4 years old "Overpriced" moniker labeled on RF glass is pretty weak.
- Sony's 2.8 GM Trinity = $7294.00
- Nikon's 2.8's trinity = $7590.85
- Canon's trinity = $7497.99
Big Primes:
There is for sure some high cost RF glass but much of that is unique in design. The RF28-70 f2.0 as an example of costly but truly awesome and unique lens.
Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens = $11998.00
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens = 11999.00
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Lens = 13996.95
Sony = $8138.00
Canon = $10505.00
Nikon = $9573.00
The 400mm lenses
Sony = $16,999
Canon = 18,990
Nikon = $21,800
So for the f/2.8 zoom, Canon is definitely overpriced (especially when taking into considering third parties on Sony/Nikon’s rebadged Tamron lenses) and for the 400mm lenses, Canon is slightly overpriced and Nikon is very overpriced
Upvote
0
Similar threads
