Talked to an old friend who owns a local camera store today. He had just received price sheets on the new products. No new cameras were listed except for the new rebel. The 200mm F2 has a dealer net of $5300.00 so its definitely going to retail for alot more than Nikons version.

The other very interesting bit of info he passed along was the Canon rep told him that there will probably be a program where present owners of the 1DmkIII will be permitted to turn in there cameras toward a new 1DmkIIIN. When there will be a MKIIIN wasn't clear. He also speculated that Canon may not ever come out with a new version of the 5D as it cuts into 1-series camera sales, although that was just his own opinion.

Edited by gene A. on Jan 30, 2008 at 06:43 PM GMT

gene A. wrote:
The other very interesting bit of info he passed along was the Canon rep told him that there will probably a program where present owners of the 1DmkIII will be permitted to turn in there cameras toward a new 1DmkIIIN. When there will be a MKIIIN wasn't clear.

Interesting.

It seems logical that Canon are going to have to replace the 1D3 with a replacement/upgrade to boost sales.

If such a program does happen, I would only hope that it was run by Canon Worldwide, not just Canon US.

gene A. wrote:
The other very interesting bit of info he passed along was the Canon rep told him that there will probably be a program where present owners of the 1DmkIII will be permitted to turn in there cameras toward a new 1DmkIIIN.


Yea but how much of a discount are 1D3 owners going to get when they turn it in towards a 1D3N? My guess is not that much.

Regarding the pricing of the new teles, I'm not surprised. Thinking about it some more it makes a lot of sense. These lenses are going to have a relatively long market life (easily 10 years). Canon hasn't raised the prices of past lenses year over year to account for inflation. My guess is that these prices are simply priced at a level that can remain consistent for the next several years. Disregarding the sunk cost of research, I don't think it really becomes drastically cheaper to produce these super teles as time goes on (but then again, what do I know, I've never built a lens ).

I'm not sure the prices will hold at that level more than the usual few introductory months. Some photographers are going to really want 200 f2 and will pay, of course, what is asked. Others are going to look at a $1,000+ difference and consider it may be time to change to the dark side. I know some indoor sports folks who are considering the D3 now may move over if there's a huge difference in the 200 f2 prices.
Personally I've shot the D3 / f2.0 combination and find it compares very favorably to the 200 f1.8 on 1DIIn I shot in the past. I'm sure the new Canon lens will be as good, but I can't imagine it will be better than the Nikon, so I doubt I'd be willing to pay a premium.

Do you really think a local camera store is going to pay the same dealer net price as a place like B&H? I think not. Thus, Dealer net on the 200 f/2 will be lower @ places like B&H, and they will use that to sell more as a competitive advantage. (IMNSHO).

-Ed

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Do you really think a local camera store is going to pay the same dealer net price as a place like B&H? I think not. Thus, Dealer net on the 200 f/2 will be lower @ places like B&H, and they will use that to sell more as a competitive advantage. (IMNSHO).


Right. My local dealer complains all the time that his cost is more than the B&H sell price.

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Do you really think a local camera store is going to pay the same dealer net price as a place like B&H? I think not. Thus, Dealer net on the 200 f/2 will be lower @ places like B&H, and they will use that to sell more as a competitive advantage. (IMNSHO).

-Ed


Higher volume places like B&H may get an advantage on high volume items (like consumer bodies and even most L lenses), however I seriously doubt (though I have nothing to back thisup) they would get a low volume item like a super tele for significantly less. Just look around at 500 f/4 IS prices. At most B&H is only about 100-200 cheaper than most local dealers which isn't that big of a savings. You might see the teles a few hundred dollars cheaper at B&H but it sure ain't going to be anything close to the 4k (for the 200) and 7k (for the 800) that most people were hoping for.

gene A. wrote:
... He also speculated that Canon may not ever come out with a new version of the 5D as it cuts into 1-series camera sales, although that was just his own opinion.


A new 5D won't cut into the 1-series sales nearly as much as the Nikon D3 that many might consider instead. What other full-frame options are there?

The B&H prices undercut my local dealer on almost everything. However the Nikon 200 f2 is the same price at B&H, other web dealers, and my local dealer. So I'd be surprised if you saw B&H offering the Canon 200 f2 much lower than everyone else.

And the Nikon 200 f2 on the D3 really produces wonderful images. I'd expect the Canon to be just as good but that price is going to be a problem.

Can anyone imagine what prices Canon would charge for replacements of the superteles in coming years. I think it's important when you are under the pump from your rival to offer such competitive pricing.

Price gouging at it's worst - but they'll find people crazy enough to pay $6K

The dealer price is the dealer price it doesn't vary if your large or small. Canon discounts 2% net 30. Which means that you get 2% off if you pay your invoice by the end of the month. If they meet or exceed sales goals they get about 4% of total Canon purchases back at the end of the year. They also get advertising money based on volume and promotional items like the Canon backpacks which they don't pay for but sell. They also often buy the camera/lens kits and then split them up etc.

My point is they never get a discount on any actual item, but they do get promotional items and some volume kick backs.

My 200/1.8 is looking better by the day - and a bargain I never thought I'd consider my 200/1.8 a steal pricewise but compared to 6k it is!

Let us see: 200 f/2 VR ($4k) + D300 ($1.8k) = $5.8k.

Now, there are also additional side benefits of chosing the above alternative: access opened up to some noteworthy Nikkor lenses such as 14-24 and 200-400 zooms both of which are priced lower than their Canon approximations 14L and 400DO.

Hmmm, that somehow does not sound as far fetched as it once was.

PetKal wrote:
Let us see: 200 f/2 VR ($4k) + D300 ($1.8k) = $5.8k.


Baaahh - the D3 would be the way to go. Of course, that would be a little bit more expensive!

The price of the 200 f/2 is disappointing (though I would never have purchased it anyway with my budget and the fact that I'm only a hobbyist), but look at it this way: Canon could be pricing it that way because it might just be that good. Perhaps it's the single greatest lens that has ever been produced for the 135 format. I mean, there has to be SOME reason that Canon feels it can profit from the lens at that price.

Regardless of the introductory price, the final price will settle to what the market will pay for....if people would rather buy a D300 + Nikkor 200 f/2, then Canon will see that and adjust the price accordingly. If people will pay that, well, they'll make out!

Jman13 wrote:
...I mean, there has to be SOME reason that Canon feels it can profit from the lens at that price.


I am starting to believe that there are people in the marketing department at Canon that are completely clueless as to who their customers are.

Tom_W wrote:
Baaahh - the D3 would be the way to go. Of course, that would be a little bit more expensive!

Yup, that's a problem. I could perhaps sustain a restrained (very specialized) foray into the Nikkor land, but not an all-out shopping spree. Furthermore, switching systems is still out of question for me.

Practically speaking though, I consider all those options very expensive and hardly justifiable for most folks.

I really believe that if Nikon were to pull a huge surprise and release a full-frame counterpart to the 5d, at say $2500-$3000, the flood gates would open. I think we would see a mass exitus like never before. The lack of that camera, and/or maybe a couple of f/4 zooms, are the only things holding back a huge number of people from switching to Nikon.

Hmmm...if I was any kind of a sports photographer I would need a 400 too.

That's 4k for the 200 and 8.8k for the 400.

I really don't see how that is much cheaper than canon will be offering this year.

Right now I can buy both a used canon 400 is and a 200 1.8 for 8,500 IMO that is where the deal is.

When nikon comes out with a new lens for 2.3k more than canon lens that has been available for years...BOTH/ALL companies are in business to make money.

Sorry, no disrespect to your friend intended, but this just doesn't make much sense. The announced price of the 300 2.8L IS was over $6,000. Yet is never sold anywhere near that, even on the day it first hit the shelves. The announced price of the 70-200 2.8L IS was $3000! We know what it sells for.

The original 200 f/1.8L always sold for less than the old 300 2.8L.

Nikon 200 f/2 sells for almost $1000 less than Nikon 300 f/2.8.

Given all that, I don't see how it's really possible for the new 200 f/2 IS to have dealer cost of $5300.

mt-m wrote:
Sorry, no disrespect to your friend intended, but this just doesn't make much sense. The announced price of the 300 2.8L IS was over $6,000. Yet is never sold anywhere near that, even on the day it first hit the shelves. The announced price of the 70-200 2.8L IS was $3000! We know what it sells for.


Canon has changed their policies so that their announced prices are much closer to street prices than in days past. I think they even officially made an announcement a while back saying as much. One needs only to look at the Canon's announced prices for their recent releases to see that they are indeed much closer to the actual street price.

agree with mt-m. the 200/2 will find itself settling in around US$4K, a bit after its intro.

I predicted a 1Dn III month ago, next prediction; November 08 when it comes out

mt-m wrote:
Nikon 200 f/2 sells for almost $1000 less than Nikon 300 f/2.8.


Umm, no. The 200 f2 VR is $4000, the 300 f2.8 VR is $4500.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Can anyone imagine what prices Canon would charge for replacements of the superteles in coming years. I think it's important when you are under the pump from your rival to offer such competitive pricing.

Price gouging at it's worst - but they'll find people crazy enough to pay $6K

I think this is an important point. If you look at the current Canon super-tele line up, it's from 1999. With Nikon announcing the D3 and finally adding VR to all of their super-teles, they have caught up, but at a considerable price premium vs. Canon. That leaves Canon a lot of room to set prices once they update their current lenses, which have been seemingly immune from price increases as far back as I can remember. Considering the new 800, and to a lesser degree the 200 f/2, I think we'll probably see such an update in the next year or two with prices much closer to the Nikon equivalents.

PrecisionPhoto wrote:
I predicted a 1Dn III month ago, next prediction; November 08 when it comes out

Haha... that's not such a risky guess since it would be pretty much in line with the seemingly typical 18 month 1D (non-s) product cycle.

Ron