$3299 USD
Dang it. If you hadn't guessed that I would have bid $1 and tried to get into the Showcase Showdown.
Upvote
0
$3299 USD
It may be fun to see whose guesstimate is the closest. So, what will be R5's price at BW Photo at launch? I predict 3599$ You?
Let he who has not bought too many filters cast the first stone...BW Photo?
Do you mean B&H?
I was going to say $3499 and holding at least at $3299 through end of year sales.
This is the one I hoped for (better, actually) when switching from Nikon late last year. At any plausible price I’m buying. $4500 isn’t plausible in my opinion and even if production costs were high I suspect Canon would rather capture market share and lose money on early sales to keep the price at $3999 or below.
Under $3000 is also implausible.
The market take is looking at Sony A9 for $4500 and A7 for $3500. This feels like it’s drawing customers considering either of those. Especially those on the fence between the two. The R5 might not beat either of them at their own game but it trounces each in the other’s game. 45Mp at those frame rates is an all around winner. Given that, $3999 is very supportable. $3499 makes it a Sony killer
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.The market take is looking at Sony A9 for $4500 and A7 for $3500. This feels like it’s drawing customers considering either of those. Especially those on the fence between the two. The R5 might not beat either of them at their own game but it trounces each in the other’s game.
I'd love to see a week go by here without all the petty correcting that we must endure by those with perfection, one-upmanship and whatever other DSM-5 Section ll issues.
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.
If they price R5 higher than $3299, they're repeating old mistakes. One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs, and it's the main reason A7III killed everything else in the FF market in the past 2 years. Canon's RF lenses already sell for a hefty premium, and if they start charging $4000+ for MILCs that aren't even flagship level, they're just being greedy. It would be a huge mistake that I'd rather not see them make. Sony forums are also banking on the R5 being ridiculously expensive, because they know it will stop people from jumping to Canon.
Being overpriced (along with the RF lenses that arguably already are) will also make EF users apprehensive about jumping to mirrorless. Or it might drive them to Sony, which is what this camera is supposed to prevent.
Yessss. Sorry. I knew I was typing something wrong.BW Photo?
Do you mean B&H?
Sorry it was an honest mistake.Sorry, but it was an honest question. I was wondering if "BW" was something similar to "CPW" that I'd not heard of.
By your logic, the price of the camera doesn't matter, so Canon should just make it $15,000, and make boatloads of money on it because the price of the camera doesn't drive the decision, as you said.But how many people are going to be in a position where the price of the camera drives the decision? There aren't going to be a lot of first time buyers at this level, so one question is how the new camera fits with what they have and what are perceived to be the most important features of the cameras. At that price level, I would think that most buyers are looking for the right camera for them, not the least expensive choice.
By your logic, the price of the camera doesn't matter, so Canon should just make it $15,000, and make boatloads of money on it because the price of the camera doesn't drive the decision, as you said.
Your wording is full of wishy washy terms... "Many" shopping in this range might be indifferent to "marginal" changes in price?I didn’t read his words that way at all. I agree with him that many of those shopping in this range might be indifferent to a marginal change in price within a plausible range (now I’m paraphrasing him, hopefully accurately).
But that reasonable principle of elasticity of demand (inelasticity in this case) can’t be taken to absurd extremes. Not good logic.
The A9 is currently $3499. A7III is $1799. I assume you meant A7R IV which is $3499.
If they price R5 higher than $3299, they're repeating old mistakes. One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs, and it's the main reason A7III killed everything else in the FF market in the past 2 years. Canon's RF lenses already sell for a hefty premium, and if they start charging $4000+ for MILCs that aren't even flagship level, they're just being greedy. It would be a huge mistake that I'd rather not see them make. Sony forums are also banking on the R5 being ridiculously expensive, because they know it will stop people from jumping to Canon.
Being overpriced (along with the RF lenses that arguably already are) will also make EF users apprehensive about jumping to mirrorless. Or it might drive them to Sony, which is what this camera is supposed to prevent.
Your wording is full of wishy washy terms... "Many" shopping in this range might be indifferent to "marginal" changes in price?
Listen either the price matters, or it doesn't.
You can't say "oh well $50 or $100 doesn't matter, but of course several thousand dollars does."
Of the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who may buy this camera, every dollar you raise the price may alienate one more customer just enough to not buy it. Without having extensive data and a lot of determination to research it all, I really have no clue how many sales raising a flagship camera price $50 costs, but I guarantee it has some effect on sales.
I think it depends on the quality (and cost) of the EVF you would find acceptable for your main camera. I won't be surprised (nor hesitant) to pay a $500 more for an EVF that is much closer to the quality of a FF OVF than the EOS R one.One of the benefits of MILC is that they're (usually) cheaper than DSLRs,