We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

[Ozarker]

If the lenses you now have are still useful, then you don't need to spend anything to take photographs.

Exactly true. Makes jumping ship a silly thing to do if the goal is to save money. Yes, even going from EF to RF. When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.

 

[rosstcorbett]

I'm praying the UK 15-35 comes in under £2,300. The article prices quoted and my gut says otherwise.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Let's not cherry pick. The 70-200 III was introduced in August 2018 (one year ago) at $2,099. (Source: Official Canon USA Press Release)

If you are going to compare prices, you shouldn't be going back nine years and using a previous version.

Sorry, that version III completely slipped my mind. Without doing any calculations, that's a big jump in price.

 

[unfocused]

Sorry, that version III completely slipped my mind. Without doing any calculations, that's a big jump in price.

No problem. Agreed. If the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.

 

[SecureGSM]

Just my 2c. Canon usually try and position pro lenses a little below competition price wise.
I do not see this being different for RF lenses we discuss. There is a trend and there is a winning strategy that Canon was following for many years now. So.. let’s wait and see what transpires.
Alternatively, I will continue shooting with my EF glass adapted to a future Canon R pro camera body. Seriously. I do not see myself spending that much to upgrade already excellent glass.
Ok EF 16-35 III may get upgraded if the RF equivalent offers a significantly better vignetting levels in corners which is totally expected.
24-70/2.8 being replaced with 28-70/2.0.

 

[David - Sydney]

Exactly true. Makes jumping ship a silly thing to do if the goal is to save money. Yes, even going from EF to RF. When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.

An interesting point as I see little in the way of discounts for 5Div whereas a lot of discounts for R. Competiton I guess but Canon is happy to have 35% premium for the 5Div over the R via authorised channels and 18% premium via grey market. The R price differential is ~4% for the R (authorised v grey)

 

[flip314]

Let's not cherry pick. The 70-200 III was introduced in August 2018 (one year ago) at $2,099. (Source: Official Canon USA Press Release)

If you are going to compare prices, you shouldn't be going back nine years and using a previous version.

I'm skeptical that the prices predicted are accurate and we should all wait until we get the actual pricing from Canon, but if the quoted prices are close to correct, the RF version will be significantly more expensive than the most current EF version was at introduction.

Although to play devil's advocate, I don't think the III had any changes in optical formula (just the new paint and new lens coating), so the R&D was probably significantly reduced for that lens.

 

[Ozarker]

An interesting point as I see little in the way of discounts for 5Div whereas a lot of discounts for R. Competiton I guess but Canon is happy to have 35% premium for the 5Div over the R via authorised channels and 18% premium via grey market. The R price differential is ~4% for the R (authorised v grey)

The 5D Mark IV released at $3,499 in the United States. At Adorama it is now $2799. That's $700 off the introduction price, from an authorized dealer. 25%
The R released at $2,299. It is now $1,999 with the rebate in the USA, from an authorized dealer. $300 off the introduction price. 17%

28.5% difference in price from an authorized dealer in the USA.

So I don't understand what you are talking about. I don't know why grey market is part of the discussion. You are in Australia. I am in the USA. Two different markets with different import duties and the exchange rate between our dollar, your dollar, and the yen or wherever the grey market gear comes from. I am ignorant as to Australia's pricing and what is offered grey market there. I never look at grey market here, but I know some do. Glad to have your perspective though.

Some have said that mirrorless is less expensive to manufacture. I don't know. What I do know is that the two cameras are different animals, so I don't think the difference in prices of the two cameras is a fair way to compare on the playing field. They each have their own market niche.

 

[PGSanta]

No problem. Agreed. If the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.

To be accurate the III is a revision to an existing design, it’s basically nothing but a coating/polish change; the better comparison is actually the introduction of the first design since this new 70-200 is a complete redesign.

 

[[email protected]]

Good releases from Canon and prices are in tally with other FF ML manufacturers Nikon, Sony - still will keep my DSLR lenses until they blow and then possibly then buy ML equivalents or second hand Nikon's DSLR equivalents (latest release).

A lot of money in moving to Photography whether it is DSLR or Mirrorless, Bridge, serious compact and also moving over to FF & Mirrorless

 

[David - Sydney]

The 5D Mark IV released at $3,499 in the United States. At Adorama it is now $2799. That's $700 off the introduction price, from an authorized dealer.
The R released at $2,299. It is now $1,999 with the rebate in the USA, from an authorized dealer. $300 off the introduction price.

28.5% difference in price from an authorized dealer in the USA.

So I don't understand what you are talking about. I don't know why grey market is part of the discussion. You are in Australia. I am in the USA. Two different markets with different import duties and the exchange rate between our dollar, your dollar, and the yen or wherever the grey market gear comes from. I am ignorant as to Australia's pricing and what is offered grey market there. Glad to have your perspective though.

Some have said that mirrorless is less expensive to manufacture. I don't know. What I do know is that the two cameras are different animals, so I don't think the difference in prices of the two cameras is a fair way to compare on the playing field. They each have their own market niche.

"When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole."
I responded based on the price differential between 5Div and R although I admit that they are in totally different market segments but use the same sensor and hence closest to my 5Diii for an upgrade.

We don't know the comparative margins for 5Div v R but there is a lot of R&D to be amortised into the new mount and eye-af software vs mirror/prism cost. Digic 6 v 8, joystick v flippy screen, video extras etc. 5Div would be in cash cow phase of its product life for Canon. A premium of 40% using your figures is a lot in any language for weather sealing, battery life, and dual card.

Grey market in Australia (local warranty but sent for repairs in another country) has significant discounts over local authorised dealer for 5Div only. This shows that some countries (probably Hong Kong) have significantly cheaper local pricing for the 5Div. A reasonable option when 2nd hand 5Div with low shutter count are going for about the same cost with no warranty. Grey market pricing for the R is almost the same so no real advantage. The Australian authorised dealer price for 5Div is slightly cheaper than the Adorama price taking exchange rate and GST into consideration.

Ultimately, I am waiting to upgrade my 5Diii. A 5Dv for weather proofing, ergonomics (large hands) and hopefully compatibility with my underwater housing which costs as much as a body would be great. A 5Dv would be late 2020 and a bit more reasonably priced in 2021 if it is released at all. At the moment, I don't have a clear path for the next couple of years.

 

[Ozarker]

"When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole."
I responded based on the price differential between 5Div and R although I admit that they are in totally different market segments but use the same sensor and hence closest to my 5Diii for an upgrade.

We don't know the comparative margins for 5Div v R but there is a lot of R&D to be amortised into the new mount and eye-af software vs mirror/prism cost. Digic 6 v 8, joystick v flippy screen, video extras etc. 5Div would be in cash cow phase of its product life for Canon. A premium of 40% using your figures is a lot in any language for weather sealing, battery life, and dual card.

Grey market in Australia (local warranty but sent for repairs in another country) has significant discounts over local authorised dealer for 5Div only. This shows that some countries (probably Hong Kong) have significantly cheaper local pricing for the 5Div. A reasonable option when 2nd hand 5Div with low shutter count are going for about the same cost with no warranty. Grey market pricing for the R is almost the same so no real advantage. The Australian authorised dealer price for 5Div is slightly cheaper than the Adorama price taking exchange rate and GST into consideration.

Ultimately, I am waiting to upgrade my 5Diii. A 5Dv for weather proofing, ergonomics (large hands) and hopefully compatibility with my underwater housing which costs as much as a body would be great. A 5Dv would be late 2020 and a bit more reasonably priced in 2021 if it is released at all. At the moment, I don't have a clear path for the next couple of years.

Yes, of course you know your area better than I do. I've seen people say here that grey market is less money. I just never check. While Canon USA has honored those warranties, they say they won't. So I would be afraid of getting cut off.

And yes, the weather sealing is better on the 5D Mark IV. It's a tougher camera in that respect at the least. I think the IV price is still high because there are a lot of people who will not purchase mirrorless yet at this point, at least not the current offerings. It was a hard decision to switch from the 5D Mark III to the R because I knew I'd want the new lenses. I only really do portraits and fashion, so the weather sealing on the R wasn't as important to me as the other features. I was also holding out for the 5D mark V.

I can't wait to see what the higher end FF mirrorless has to offer from Canon.

 

[SecureGSM]

@David - Sydney

“.. I don't have a clear path for the next couple of years..”
I do not think that anyone have, Mate.
The only incentive for me personally to venture into Canon R system is the 28-70/2.0 lens. Otherwise pretty happy with my 5DIVs.

 

[unfocused]

...When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.

It's not that simple or clear cut. Companies may reduce prices for any number of reasons. Canon has a pattern of introducing products at the highest price they believe the market will bear (what company doesn't?). Usually, you will see a high initial price and then gradually they reduce that price, generally through instant rebates. For camera bodies, the price will often stabilize after a year or so and remain relatively constant, dropping slightly during the lifespan of the camera, until near the end of that life cycle, when you often see quite significant drops.

Is the product "losing value?" Well, maybe. But it's just as likely that Canon wants to hit sales goals and adjusts prices based on hitting those goals. In addition, you have the retailer's own motivations. It's been awhile, but there a time in the not too distant past when retailers were circumventing the MAP price by offering additional discounts (often with a "show price in cart" system). Dealers also can bundle manufacturers special deals and get around MAP pricing by doing that.

Dealers get special pricing on volume and on bundles and may pass along some of the savings to consumers. In short, it's too simplistic to make a blanket assumption that discounts are proof that a products is losing value.

 

[masterpix]

Continue reading...

It looks like Canon is going for a new busyness model: "buy a lens and get the mirrorless camera for free". I can understand the intention to attract professional photographers to migrate to the R system, however, if they want to migrate the XXD or XXXD customers, they will have to come up with something in the 500-1000$ non L lenses. something like the 35-135mm, 75-300mm, those kind of lenses which price will be more reasonable. Unfortunately, they are currenly loosing the 7D customers, for the 90D is not the matching upgrade everyone was looking for.

 

[unfocused]

To be accurate the III is a revision to an existing design, it’s basically nothing but a coating/polish change; the better comparison is actually the introduction of the first design since this new 70-200 is a complete redesign.

I disagree. If you are going to compare lenses, you should compare them based on the price to the consumer of the most current comparable model. Going back nine years when you have a one-year-old release is cherry picking the data. Mt. Spokane acknowledged it was an oversight and we've moved on.

If you are saying the R version should be more expensive because it is a different design, that may be an explanation from Canon's point of view. But, to the consumer, who will be choosing between the two current models, it's only fair to compare the prices of those models.

Ultimately, customers will decide whether or not the new R version is worth the extra money to them. (If indeed it does cost more.) But, we weren't discussing whether or not it is worth the money (that's up to each individual). Instead, we are determining if the new lens is more expensive that the EF version and in this case, if the quoted prices are correct, it will undeniably be more expensive than the EF version at introduction.

 

[Ozarker]

It's not that simple or clear cut. Companies may reduce prices for any number of reasons. Canon has a pattern of introducing products at the highest price they believe the market will bear (what company doesn't?). Usually, you will see a high initial price and then gradually they reduce that price, generally through instant rebates. For camera bodies, the price will often stabilize after a year or so and remain relatively constant, dropping slightly during the lifespan of the camera, until near the end of that life cycle, when you often see quite significant drops.

Is the product "losing value?" Well, maybe. But it's just as likely that Canon wants to hit sales goals and adjusts prices based on hitting those goals. In addition, you have the retailer's own motivations. It's been awhile, but there a time in the not too distant past when retailers were circumventing the MAP price by offering additional discounts (often with a "show price in cart" system). Dealers also can bundle manufacturers special deals and get around MAP pricing by doing that.

Dealers get special pricing on volume and on bundles and may pass along some of the savings to consumers. In short, it's too simplistic to make a blanket assumption that discounts are proof that a products is losing value.

You are right. What I meant by losing value was that Canon knows at introduction there are people who will pay more. As time goes on, not so much. So the price gradually comes down to meet sales goals and other needs, as you said. I don't expect that the current RF lenses will be full price in two years or even a year.

Adorama bundles stuff with lenses and cameras, but it isn't usually high quality stuff in my opinion.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

No problem. Agreed. If the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.

I'm pretty sure they are correct. The info is out there, dealers are setting up their stores getting ready for the approval to throw the switch. Someone in a position to know undoubtedly leaked the data.

 

[Quirkz]

I wouldn’t know if it was a $1000 or $10 dollar bottle so I leave it and have myself a nice Laphroaig 25 instead

25year? That’s the reason you didn’t buy more R lenses.

 

[PGSanta]

I disagree. If you are going to compare lenses, you should compare them based on the price to the consumer of the most current comparable model. Going back nine years when you have a one-year-old release is cherry picking the data. Mt. Spokane acknowledged it was an oversight and we've moved on.

You can choose to compare it however you want to, but from a business analytics perspective you're comparing the tail end of a development cycle to the ramp up of a new one, which is a sin. I don't know who you, or Mt. Spokane are, or what sort of work you do, but I'm glad you've moved on... I guess?

If you are saying the R version should be more expensive because it is a different design, that may be an explanation from Canon's point of view. But, to the consumer, who will be choosing between the two current models, it's only fair to compare the prices of those models.

Sure, it's fair if you decide it's fair, or not, if you don't...

The facts are this is a new product with one peer on the market... the Sony 70-200 GM, which is made in Thailand, is much larger, has been on the market for a while, is known to have QC issues, and runs $2599. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I'll take the Canon at $2799 all day long relative to the alternative. I still hope the pricing is wrong, but if it's not... well... I'm ok with it.

Ultimately, customers will decide whether or not the new R version is worth the extra money to them. (If indeed it does cost more.) But, we weren't discussing whether or not it is worth the money (that's up to each individual). Instead, we are determining if the new lens is more expensive that the EF version and in this case, if the quoted prices are correct, it will undeniably be more expensive than the EF version at introduction.

What you're trying to describe is a relationship called willingness to pay and consumer surplus, and no we definitely don't want to get into a discussion about that on these boards.