What is the New Gear Going to Cost?

[Old Man FL/FD]

No, in a car factory, it's just a matter of using a metallic paint in a fully automated robotised painting process, instead of a non-metallic one. It takes a few seconds for the paint-robot to switch paints. The paint itself costs a few $ more if it is a metallic one. But the customer is charged lots more. A "special" taste is what you pay for, the same applies to special edition cameras. Vanity always had its price...

BMW M3 metallic paint options cost between $550 and $4,500 USD.

Some people are willing to pay a premium to have a ‘red dot’ on their camera. What’s hilarious is some other people are willing to pay even more to not have the red dot on their red dot camera.

 

[Uneternal]

No, in a car factory, it's just a matter of using a metallic paint in a fully automated robotised painting process, instead of a non-metallic one. It takes a few seconds for the paint-robot to switch paints. The paint itself costs a few $ more if it is a metallic one. But the customer is charged lots more. A "special" taste is what you pay for, the same applies to special edition cameras. Vanity always had its price...

No, it's not just a matter... Metallic paint is not just standard paint with glitter; it requires a more complicated chemical and mechanical process to produce and apply. Metallics almost always require a multi-stage process, whereas standard paints can often be applied in a simple 2-stage process. Robotic sprayers also must be calibrated more precisely for metallic finishes so the glitter doesn't end up in patterns.

Sure, it still doesn't explain a $1000 premium fee, but just cause it's an accepted rip-off in car sales doesn't mean you gotta kiss Canon's boots when they're trying to pull the same sh*t. Especially not when they're charging a whopping 47.78% extra for a color. This would be like paying $62,000 for a metallic Tesla when the standard color costs $42,000.

 

[nickorando]

Wide is expensive.. 10-20 isn't cheap.

Given it's wider, better, smaller, lighter, has IS, and was cheaper at launch than the 11-24 was a decade before, I rather think it is. At least in relative terms. Yeah, it's the most expensive lens I own, but it's also the best value. Probably.

I need that fisheye zoom...

I think I'm owed some barter credit, I'll be cashing in on that for the 14!