What's your acceptable price for the 1Dx
- Thread starter JEAraman
- Start date
- Status
D
DB
Guest
There is a wider issue here, namely; the product or model lifespan (not talking actuations here but model replacement) so $8000 over 4 year period may be perfectly acceptable, but let's just say that Canon could profitably produce and sell the 1DX for $4999 in volume terms, what would that do the prices of all DSLR bodies down the product line? It would cause price compression and cut too much into profit margins on Rebels and the xxxxD series because of the ripple down effect. Furthermore, it could totally cannibalise the lower strata of digital cameras completely, especially if a 7D costs less than a grand, a 60D for $600, a T4i for $499, and an entry level 1200D for $299! It would decimate margins on Point-and-Shoot cameras completely.
Upvote
0
As long the camera can deliver the results what the PRO(s) looking for, $6800 shouldn’t be a problem. How often do you hear people say “you gotta have the right tool for the right job” – Yes, I believe it.
And if you like me, who use camera to capture family photos, 5D series + some “L” lenses are more than enough. $6800 is a little too high for me.
Maybe someday in the future, but NOT now.
And if you like me, who use camera to capture family photos, 5D series + some “L” lenses are more than enough. $6800 is a little too high for me.
Maybe someday in the future, but NOT now.
Upvote
0
DB said:
Or maybe it's the other way round. How much was the 1DsIII at launch ? Don't forget that it also boils down to unit production cost as the volume is much lower than cheaper models. Having said that, this 1D series has something out of this world which is worth paying for.
This is where I want to go: all is a matter of perceived value. We don't mind paying for something if we feel we get the bang for our bucks. Everything in life. Call me stubborn, but at nearly 3900 incl. grip, I am still circling around the 5/3 as I don't have that feeling. Since I need to put a price here, say at 5900, I'd grab one - whenever it reaches the shelves - and leave the 5/3 behind. No second thoughts.
Upvote
0
D
DB
Guest
birtembuk said:
I totally agree that from a personal viewpoint it is all about perceived value and not actual price, or perhaps even production costs. For all we know the 1DX might be the Buggati Veyron of the camera world, in that Canon might be forced to sell it below cost (as a loss leader) just so that enough enthusiasts as well as pro's buy one and give them exposure, as well as creating the desire and aspiration for 5D users to trade up.
As far as the other point - "Relative Value" - I also agree too that at 2 grand more for 1DX vs 5D3, many potential buyers would go the whole hog and buy the flagship model. It all boils down to what the marketing people think the market will bear (price that is) and how this relative pricing will have a knock on effect on margins on the more profitable consumer end of the business. These new DSLR prices have absolutely nothing to do with 'Supply' (a known entity) and 'Demand' (a stochastic variable), otherwise MSRP's would be fluctuating weekly or monthly, plus in economic there exist multiple equilibria at a given price. Nor may it have anything to do with production costs - just look at L lenses vs EF-S, which make more money for Canon, well obviously the latter as they sell a helluva lot more. Just look at the $1000 hike in the 24-70 mk2 as concrete evidence -> pure avarice or absolute necessity?
On balance then, this is why we're all often confused about their pricing policy - the 5D3 costs more than double the 5D2 (3600 vs 1600 euros where I am). Every business on the planet is either "Volume" or "Margin", IMHO Canon is the former, but they're strategically using relatively high FF camera body prices to raise everyone's price expectations. I mean as a 7D owner (traded up from T2i) who one day will like to move up the digital ladder, will likely shell out an extra $1000 for a 7D2 instead, because I cannot afford a 5D3 or 1D. It's sheer brilliance on Canon's behalf, they must have Quants working for them in their marketing or sales area, using quadratic linear programming algorithms to calculate 'optimal' pricing structure. Why we'll always be in the dark.
Upvote
0
Nice to say.DB said:
That's hard to say. If you are selling your photos, you might want to get the beast. You can proud to tell your customers, I am always using the best lenses and see this lens cost 2.3K.
For normal users, that depends on how much money you want to put on your toy. For me, I am not sure yet. For most people may be not.
My friend just got a second 2000+ LV bag in three years. Lucky for me, my wife is not interested in LV. Is the LV bag necessary for my friend? I don't know. However, if I ask her, she might tell me 1000 reasons why she need a LV bag.
It's just human natural.
Upvote
0
D
DB
Guest
HurtinMinorKey said:
Well a really basic operational definition of a 'business' is "one or more persons coming together with a common view to making a profit", so excuse the pun, but profit is the bottom line.
The question of avarice in this context for high-end DSLRs is whether or not the net margins are as high as they are (in percentage terms) as say a Rebel body. IMHO I don't believe that Canon operates on a straight mark-up basis. My thoughts are that it is very calculated, just like automobile manufacturers use differential pricing in different markets, as well as differential relative pricing e.g. a 3-series BMW costs the same in most countries, but large deviations appear with the 5-series, then there is the 7-series... and that can cost more than 3 times the price of a 3-Series and easily more than double a 5-Series, but does it cost more than double to make. Of course not. Ask a main BMW dealer though how many 7-Series he's sold last month, then ask how many 3 or 5-series...and you'll quickly get the idea (just FYI in Ireland you can get a new 530d for fifty grand, but you'll pay 134,000 euros not dollars for a 730d).
Canon could easily drop the prices of the new 5D3 and 1DX to say $2,500 and $5,250 respectively and perhaps sell two to three times as many, but then they'd sell proportionately less Rebels and so on. Finally, they'd have a big problem selling lenses (at current prices) to people and this is where they must make a ton of money. I mean why does a T2i cost twice as much as an iPad3? Unlike Apple Inc., Canon Inc. are more interested in selling you the accessories like lenses, grips, sync cords, flashguns (all at high prices) than just selling you a single product.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
