$2,700 doesn't really seem like a great price as far as I'm concerned. Seems like that should be about the normal price for what you get.

In dreams?

Precisely. The 5D3 should be a $2700 camera. I bought mine when it first came out for $3500 and while that extra $700 is a lot, I made a lot of money with that camera. Canon's marketing games are definitely tiring, though.

halie wrote:
$2,700 doesn't really seem like a great price as far as I'm concerned. Seems like that should be about the normal price for what you get.

cineski wrote:
I bought mine when it first came out for $3500 and while that extra $700 is a lot, I made a lot of money with that camera.


$700 is no big lost if Pros like you use it to make money, plus the tax write off. The rest of the weekend shutterbugs like myself is standing on the sideline waiting for the price to drop so we can play. I'm current waiting for the Black Friday sales, you may see me on TV getting run over by people at BestBuys trying to get good deals.

cineski wrote:
Precisely. The 5D3 should be a $2700 camera. I bought mine when it first came out for $3500 and while that extra $700 is a lot, I made a lot of money with that camera. Canon's marketing games are definitely tiring, though.

halie wrote:
$2,700 doesn't really seem like a great price as far as I'm concerned. Seems like that should be about the normal price for what you get.


Why should it be $2700? Because you want it to be?

Ben Horne wrote:
vsg28 wrote:
I find it hard to believe Canon did a back room deal with only a select few dealers to sell a body for less on eBay.

I don't see any other plausible explanation. Imagine if you had a warehouse full of cameras that weren't selling nearly as fast as you would like. You can't do an official price drop because it would show weakness in the line, and it wouldn't sit well with all those users who paid full pop for the camera. Perhaps you could call up some of the biggest dealers, and offer them the cameras at a greatly reduced price just so long as they don't sell them through traditional distribution that would violate MAP.


It's been stated several times that Beach (and I believe Adorama as well) said the deal was possible due to incentives/subsidies provided by eBay. Other deal-of-the-day vendors have stated the same thing in the past.

No, I don't care what it is because I don't need or want one. Because it doesn't seem to me like it is 4 years of advancement and $1,700 better than a 5D Mk II.

snapsy wrote:
It's been stated several times that Beach (and I believe Adorama as well) said the deal was possible due to incentives/subsidies provided by eBay. Other deal-of-the-day vendors have stated the same thing in the past.

It's been stated, but never confirmed by anyone in-the-know. Just because people who guess state something over and over again doesn't mean it's true. I have yet to see anyone from Beach or Adorama publicly state how it was possible to sell 5D III at such price at the time.

snapsy wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
vsg28 wrote:
I find it hard to believe Canon did a back room deal with only a select few dealers to sell a body for less on eBay.

I don't see any other plausible explanation. Imagine if you had a warehouse full of cameras that weren't selling nearly as fast as you would like. You can't do an official price drop because it would show weakness in the line, and it wouldn't sit well with all those users who paid full pop for the camera. Perhaps you could call up some of the biggest dealers, and offer them the cameras at a greatly reduced price just so long as they don't sell them through traditional distribution that would violate MAP.


It's been stated several times that Beach (and I believe Adorama as well) said the deal was possible due to incentives/subsidies provided by eBay. Other deal-of-the-day vendors have stated the same thing in the past.


It makes more sense that Canon is offering select dealers special pricing on the cameras to unload them. Why would ebay voluntarily take a ~$600 loss for helping another company sell product? My guess is that this is the excuse that was offered up when customers contacted theses stores because they weren't allowed to say that canon gave them special pricing.

Ben Horne wrote:
It makes more sense that Canon is offering select dealers special pricing on the cameras to unload them. Why would ebay voluntarily take a ~$600 loss for helping another company sell product? My guess is that this is the excuse that was offered up when customers contacted theses stores because they weren't allowed to say that canon gave them special pricing.

eBay used to give 20%+ cash back to buyers during promotions, plus all the click referrals they used to pay. They have a big ad budget and have been doing lots of experimentation with it ever since they discounted their cash back program and also stopped paying for referrals. This is much more plausible to me than Canon making back-room deals that pit their biggest dealers against each other.

Actually this is what helen oster from adorama said:

------------

I wish I could; and I am sure you know by now that I always do my best to be as up-front as possible with you - unless there are sound reasons not to, for example, that to do so might compromise the sustainability and/or security of a business relationship or model.

Unfortunately this is one of those times. I'm really sorry.

Helen

------------

So no one has publicly stated anything other than that, and it probably just lead to more speculation.

I still find it odd that the biggest and baddest player in the game, B and H didn't have anything to say about it. But who knows, maybe they got a boatload of those cameras and are selling them at retail, which would be the smart thing to do for the long haul.

Ben is it correct you work at a camera store?

Also could you explain how a retailer putting something on ebay and selling it below retail is any different than putting it on your own website and selling it below retail?

Honestly, if i were a big retailer and was getting special deals/gray market, i'd just start up another company and sell items below retail all day long. This is what i thought bigvalue inc was at first.

carlsbadbum wrote:
I'm current waiting for the Black Friday sales, you may see me on TV getting run over by people at BestBuys trying to get good deals.

Black friday deals in Best Buy (or most any other brick and mortar retailer) only matches prices you routinely see online at best, and often not even that.

Agree on the $2700 price being there since the launch. Price is relative to competition and the D800 offers more for $500 less. I think I will skip this generation of cameras and wait for the next one. 5dmkii seems to be doing just fine for the time being.

coranda wrote:


I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think DWI is in Australia. They operate out ofSingapore or Hong Kong I think so the product you get is grey market. They offer a 1 year Australian Warranty but that warranty isn't through Canon Australia, you have to ship it back to DWI.

I also think that, technically, you should get hit with 10% GST when the goods arrive to clear customs but I haven't heard of any cases where it has been collected.


Yep, I reckon you're right, pretty sure they're not in Australia. They're quite a big seller, hopefully they're big enough to support warranty claims etc, possibly though grey market channels.

I haven't been asked for GST for previous purchases, though this is my biggest purchase yet - that would suck.

Still, when Hong Kong / Singapore are that much cheaper than retail, I think it's worth a go

Looks like the $3069 price was a mistake

It's back to $3569 this morning on the DWI site

Here's hoping they honour the lower price!