Value for your money - has this ever been uttered by Canon ?

[Aglet]

I was just reading this little bit of an interview with Nikon's Dirk Jasper, published on DPreview:

www.dpreview.com/articles/7228819844/photokina-2012-interview-dirk-jasper-of-nikon

It mostly discusses the new D600 but I like the very last line, a point I don't remember Canon ever mentioning.

"Even second hand, or refurbished, a good lens is still worth its price, ten or twenty years later. Especially for enthusiasts, backwards and downwards compatibility is very important. Once you invest your money in a system it must be safe. You must get value for money. "

We do know that Canon glass, especially the L series stuff from the last 10 or 12 years, does hold its value extremely well. In fact, it's been my best performing investment ever!

But I take the context of Dirk's comment to imply the whole camera-lens system.
Even OUT of context, I'd like to hear Canon say, and mean, they intend to offer good value for money. Something I think the new 6D fails to deliver and something the 5D3 didn't exactly deliver at its intro price either.

comments?

 

[DB]

My 7D was and is excellent value for money. The same could be said of most L lenses -> I sold a 70-200mm f/4 IS for 50 euros less than I bought it new for, plus my 24-70 mark 1 could be sold today for at least 200 more than I paid for it new back in January.....so I cannot really complain about Canon's prices....so far...but my next body may require a lottery win!

 

[crasher8]

Bodies? No but lenses sure. The Nifty and the Pancake are great examples.

 

[keithfullermusic]

First, i'll say that my 50D was, and still is, and excellent value. That thing takes amazing pictures, and has all the base features that you really need. I also believe that the 5D3 is an excellent value. The camera is unreal once you actually use it. On paper, it might not seem like the great deal, but after using it I think it was worth every penny.

I imagine that Canon's intended base for the 1D, 5D, and to some extent the 7D bodies are towards the pro crowd. These are people that make money off photography, so its definitely worth it to them. However, a lot of casual shooters and hobbyists end up buying these things, so they seem expensive and people get upset. There is nothing wrong with this. Why wouldn't you want the best gear out there even if you aren't making money off of them?

I think this forum tends to amplify the views of the more outspoken, so if you're always on here it seems like everyone is upset with Canon for their prices and "lack of features." However, Canon cameras sell like crazy, so there must be a ton of people out there who think otherwise - myself included.

 

[Tammy]

I'll assume you weren't into photography during the Canon Digital Rebel or Canon 5D eras.

 

[Zlatko]

Something I think the new 6D fails to deliver and something the 5D3 didn't exactly deliver at its intro price either.

The 5D3 offers good value for the money. It is expensive, but for the first time ever photographers can buy most of the 1D-series quality and features in a 5D-sized body and at a lower price than the 1D series.

The 6D was introduced at $600 cheaper than the 5D2 was it its introduction. Likewise, the 5D2 was about $600 cheaper than the original 5D was its introduction. The trend is toward cheaper full-frame cameras. No doubt the 6D price will fall after the introduction. If it follows the percentage reduction of the 5D2 in the past few years, it will eventually be under $1,500.

 

[EYEONE]

I think the new 6D fails to deliver and something the 5D3 didn't exactly deliver at its intro price either.

comments?

Ever used a 5D3? Delivers it in spades.

 

[TriGGy]

I am loving the 5D3 everyday since I bought it. In my view it delivers more than I expected it would. I usually get buyer's remorse for expensive stuff - but I never had that with the 5D3 with the grip. Is there any reason why you think the 5D3 "did not deliver"?

I would still be happy with the 6D if I bought it - it would be like my already sold 60D but with full frame and two more AF points (I miss that camera!) The 60D is "just" APS-C, but it still delivered great performance for me when I had it, but having a full-frame now upped my standards (though I can still get very satisfactory images with the 60D). Heck, I'm still happy with my 7D, Rebel 2000, and AV-1.

My point is, please don't get hung up on specs - get yourself a decent camera - be it Nikon/Canon/Fuji/Sony, learn its strengths and weaknesses, and enjoy shooting with it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was just reading this little bit of an interview with Nikon's Dirk Jasper, published on DPreview:

www.dpreview.com/articles/7228819844/photokina-2012-interview-dirk-jasper-of-nikon

It mostly discusses the new D600 but I like the very last line, a point I don't remember Canon ever mentioning.

"Even second hand, or refurbished, a good lens is still worth its price, ten or twenty years later. Especially for enthusiasts, backwards and downwards compatibility is very important. Once you invest your money in a system it must be safe. You must get value for money. "

We do know that Canon glass, especially the L series stuff from the last 10 or 12 years, does hold its value extremely well. In fact, it's been my best performing investment ever!

But I take the context of Dirk's comment to imply the whole camera-lens system.
Even OUT of context, I'd like to hear Canon say, and mean, they intend to offer good value for money. Something I think the new 6D fails to deliver and something the 5D3 didn't exactly deliver at its intro price either.

comments?

If you had spent $20K on a set of Canon lenses in 1998, they would likely be worth well more than $15K today.
But, if you had spent $15K on similar Nikon AIs and "D" lenses in 1998, you would have lost most of it. Even though they may be good lenses, the old screw drive ("D") lenses, for example, have lost their value pretty quickly, and do not autofocus on Nikon's entry level cameras. Then, the first Nikon "g" lenses were optimized for APS-C bodies simply because Nikon did not have a FF body. This makes them less valuable.
Nikon is pulling your leg if they claim that buying their System lenses has been a good investment.
I really doubt that any Canon or Nikon bodies from 1998 have much value today, so its only lenses that have the potential to last.
Your comment about the 6D doesn't make much sense. It will likely retain more of its value than a Digital Rebel as years pass.

.

 

[Aglet]

I'll assume you weren't into photography during the Canon Digital Rebel or Canon 5D eras.

into-it for the past 35 years.
Early Canon DSLRs were certainly impressive when they arrived in comparison to, well, most other things available at the time. But the prices were prohibitive unless you really needed or wanted to shoot digital.
I kept shooting film and used PnS digicams to their limits while waiting for DSLR tech to improve. My criteria was they needed to have at least 14bit/pixel to be useful. So when the 40D arrived, I finally bought in and got live-view as a bonus.
I still have and use the 40D, it's a favorite.
If I'd have bought a PowerShot G3 or G5 I may have delayed my DSLR first purchase considerably as those compact cameras still kick butt with great IQ and I STILL USE THEM now for certain studio work. ;D

 

[Aglet]

...Is there any reason why you think the 5D3 "did not deliver"?

... for the price, as someone who got the 5D2 base on all the fan ravings, which turns out to be a seriously disappointing camera for what I needed and wanted.
For me the 5D3 has only marginally improved IQ where I need it. Lots of nice features I would like but I'm not about to trade in 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3 unless it did much better at low ISO IQ.

I'm watching DxOmark to see how the 6D fares in DR and noise before doing my own tests on it.
At this point I'd still like to keep at one Canon FF body but I want it to be the best performing for my needs. None of Canon's products currently deliver what I expect. Their main competitor does, so I bought in over there to meet those requirements.

 

[bdunbar79]

...Is there any reason why you think the 5D3 "did not deliver"?

... for the price, as someone who got the 5D2 base on all the fan ravings, which turns out to be a seriously disappointing camera for what I needed and wanted.
For me the 5D3 has only marginally improved IQ where I need it. Lots of nice features I would like but I'm not about to trade in 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3 unless it did much better at low ISO IQ.

I'm watching DxOmark to see how the 6D fares in DR and noise before doing my own tests on it.
At this point I'd still like to keep at one Canon FF body but I want it to be the best performing for my needs. None of Canon's products currently deliver what I expect. Their main competitor does, so I bought in over there to meet those requirements.

Not arguing with you one bit here. The 5D2 and 7D cameras are great. But just keep in mind, the 5D3 is both the 5D2 and 7D, PLUS other stuff, combined into one camera. I'd rather have one camera be able to do everything vs. having to use two for two different situations. Just my perspective is all.

 

[Aglet]

If you had spent $20K on a set of Canon lenses in 1998, they would likely be worth well more than $15K today.
But, if you had spent $15K on similar Nikon AIs and "D" lenses in 1998, you would have lost most of it. Even though they may be good lenses, the old screw drive ("D") lenses, for example, have lost their value pretty quickly, and do not autofocus on Nikon's entry level cameras. Then, the first Nikon "g" lenses were optimized for APS-C bodies simply because Nikon did not have a FF body. This makes them less valuable.
Nikon is pulling your leg if they claim that buying their System lenses has been a good investment.
I really doubt that any Canon or Nikon bodies from 1998 have much value today, so its only lenses that have the potential to last.
Your comment about the 6D doesn't make much sense. It will likely retain more of its value than a Digital Rebel as years pass.

goes both ways, if you bought in to a bunch of EF-S glass and now decide you want to go FF, start all over.
OTOH, even if you have crop spec (DX) Nikon glass you can still use it on a FF camera in crop mode.
As for their older AI/AIs lenses, funny you should mention. I just loaded up on a pile of primes for dirt cheap in the used market and many of those lenses perform fabulously even on the D800 and even the crop body D5100 - for what *I* need them for.

Some of the old screw-drive D series Nikon lenses still focus faster than many of today's AFS lenses when on an appropriate body.

I avoided buying into Nikon because of their clunky looking and confusing lens history. But a soon as I got familiar with it I found it's not complicated and there's a LOT of good old glass out there that STILL WORKS on digital whereas most of my old canon FD lenses, with a converter to EOS, could not perform at all on a digital body. Inadequate coatings caused massive flare/coma rendered them useless. Converter partly to blame but frankly i can also use old Nikon glass on my Canon EOS with a much simpler adapter and get superior results too.

so..
back to my original premise.

The 5D3's a great camera but i think it was a bit overpriced at launch considering the meager IQ improvements at low ISO. It's now coming down to a more commensurate level. If I didn't have a 5D2 already, i'd likely buy one.

6D, in comparison to the D600, doesn't offer as much for the same price.
6D will likely drop in price until it reaches an appropriate "value" while the D600 likely won't drop in price since it's providing value and performance where it is.

tougher to compare 5D3 and D800, rather different cameras at similar prices. For me the D800 was a no-brainer value decision, it fulfills needs Canon can't and does so at a palatable price... Which is likely to remain the same.

Put another way, Canon's stuff is overpriced at launch.
Pent up demand after long delays likely leads to plenty of sales tho so they're still ahead that way.

 

[Aglet]

Not arguing with you one bit here. The 5D2 and 7D cameras are great. But just keep in mind, the 5D3 is both the 5D2 and 7D, PLUS other stuff, combined into one camera. I'd rather have one camera be able to do everything vs. having to use two for two different situations. Just my perspective is all.

I think 7D is great at speed and AF
I think 5D2 is great because it was the first "cheap" FF and people (I disagree somewhat) thought it had great IQ

I think the 5D3 is far better than the sum of the above 2, if not up to the speed of the 7D.

If I didn't already have the 7D + 5D2, the 5D3 would represent value to me, but as an incremental upgrade it does not until the price drops to about $2500.

Even if I had a 5Dc and my 40D, the 5D3 would still look like too high a cost to convert until the price drops.

Canon knows how to make money even better than they know how to make cameras.

 

[bdunbar79]

Not arguing with you one bit here. The 5D2 and 7D cameras are great. But just keep in mind, the 5D3 is both the 5D2 and 7D, PLUS other stuff, combined into one camera. I'd rather have one camera be able to do everything vs. having to use two for two different situations. Just my perspective is all.

I think 7D is great at speed and AF
I think 5D2 is great because it was the first "cheap" FF and people (I disagree somewhat) thought it had great IQ

I think the 5D3 is far better than the sum of the above 2, if not up to the speed of the 7D.

If I didn't already have the 7D + 5D2, the 5D3 would represent value to me, but as an incremental upgrade it does not until the price drops to about $2500.

Even if I had a 5Dc and my 40D, the 5D3 would still look like too high a cost to convert until the price drops.

Canon knows how to make money even better than they know how to make cameras.

No doubt at all in my mind, Canon made sure back then that you had to have both the 7D and 5D2, or had to fork over serious cash for both a 1Ds3 and 1D4. OUCH!

 

[crasher8]

After spending 24 hours with my new 5D3 I honestly think it is a value at $3400. WOW

 

[Hillsilly]

Not sure where the premise is coming from. Are a lot of Canon products expensive? Yes. Do they represent value? A difficult question to answer. But Canon cameras and lenses don't seem overpriced compared to the competition. In fact, many things are cheaper (and yet still better) than comparable competitor products. And given that several camera manufacturers are struggling with profitability, its difficult to argue there is a lot of price gouging or fixing going on. But I'd agree that Canon can sometimes be "tricky" with some of their prices especially when they perceive high demand (eg 5Diii), but I think that helps them offer other things more competitively.

With EF-S lenses, some such as the 10-22 sell second hand with only a small drop in value. Cheap, basic kit lenses don't retain their value (and arguably never have). Its not because they are "bad" lenses. Its simple supply and demand. People are buying second hand because they want a better-than-a-kit-lens lens. Quality lenses and cameras retain their value. The only time when you do see significant drops in value is when a mount becomes orphaned - eg Minolta MC/MD. But even recently, there has been an increase in a prices, which has possible been driven by their compatability with mirrorless cameras.

 

[Zlatko]

After spending 24 hours with my new 5D3 I honestly think it is a value at $3400. WOW

I agree. It is essentially a 1D-series camera in a smaller body and with a smaller price. It is exactly what many photographers requested: a digital version of Canon's top-of-the-line 1V of the film era. I've been using it for 6 months and have been extremely pleased. Glad to have the speed, quality and features of the 1D series without the brick-like weight or the $$$ price.

Everyone wants 5D3 features at a 6D price, and 6D features at a 60D price. That won't happen.

 

[emag]

BOJ has been attempting to stimulate inflation in Japan for years, as is every central bank in the world now. Perhaps Canon expect this to take hold relatively soon and are pricing their latest products accordingly.