SnaggS wrote:
I don't get it.. what are you excited about? You can get a better camera that works properly with 35mm lenses for less money, its called a 5D. Hands up how many of you work for sports illustrated and need the 10fps.. Nuff said.
I don't need 10fps, but the 5D doesn't bear any relevance to this conversation. It is a completely different camera designed for a completely different market.
Count me in too for people disappointed at the price "increase". I'll wait until the rush is over and they're closer to $4K. Paying $1,200 over what new Ns are going for doesn't make sense for what I do.
SnaggS wrote:
I don't get it.. what are you excited about? You can get a better camera that works properly with 35mm lenses for less money, its called a 5D. Hands up how many of you work for sports illustrated and need the 10fps.. Nuff said.
Daniel.
Glad someone made my mind up gosh.. they are almost the same.
SnaggS wrote:
I don't get it.. what are you excited about? You can get a better camera that works properly with 35mm lenses for less money, its called a 5D. Hands up how many of you work for sports illustrated and need the 10fps.. Nuff said.
Daniel.
Um...Daniel...ever actually used a 1 series camera? Looking at your website listed in your bio, it looks as though most of the stuff that you shoot doesn't move much except your infant son. A 5D will do OK for that. Those of us who shoot sports for our $$ need 1 series AF and FPS performance.
I'm not really sure why you felt the need to interject your strong opinion. 5D is a great camera but not relevent to this conversation.
I will respond in a different way I have placed an order for the MKII did on the day it was announced I thought it was under $4,000 but will still buy at 4,500. I will pay this because this is a business decision and I need a second camera. My first died the week before the MKII was announced..
I would love a 5D for its size and full frame but can not justify that camera because it would not work for me in a sports environment. In Digital I started with a 10D then a 20D then a 1D MKII., and I can tell you that each upgrade helped me to increate my keeper rate and sell more pictures. Most of this I would directly associate to the FPS increase, better ISO and auto focus improvement. I look back now and the 10D was way to slow. The 20d was great but the MKII was the best. Spending the money for the 5D would be a joy for fun photos but would not make the grade in FPS for my part-time business. It is a great camera and in a lot of ways better then the 1D MKII and MKIII when size is important and FF is an advantage.
Before you ask my PBASE account is mostly has 20D pics , not 1dMKII because I use a professional site service for my sports event photos, and liked the 20D for fun stuff.
And before any one ask why not save a lot of money and get a MKII at a reduced price Good Question but I think cleaner 3200 ISO and 6400 ISO should allow me to make even more money then the price different. ( Thats Business Justification).
I do think it was unfortunate that when the camera was first announce the $3,999.99 was stated(suggested) I think had it been announces at $4,500.00 no one would have questioned the value or fairness of the product.
SnaggS wrote:
Hands up how many of you work for sports illustrated and need the 10fps.. Nuff said.
Daniel.
Well at a paltry 3 fps for the 5D, you will miss many "moments" in a burst when shooting action sports or moving wildlife/birds....not to mention the buffer will fill quick That's why sports/wildlife shooters use 1 series cams with at least 8 fps. Also, the AF on the 1 series is far superior to that of the 5D
Unfortunately this is the way business works we would all like a high end BMW for the price of a compact striped down Ford. It just isnt goanna happen. We pay a premium for luxury and most good companies know it. Canon pricing the MKIII is not much different then a photographer charging 5,000 as opposed to his not so experienced competitor charging 1,000. You get what you pay for in many applications. It is no different in Photography equipment. Bottom line is Revenue. With that being said i still wish it was 3999
Jeff I ageree that they should of stuck to there original price, Unfortunatley they are the big fish in a little pond and they have used all off us and are pre orders to find a market price that will generate the optimal sales and revenue numbers to make up the R&D cost.
Jeff wrote:
If you are suggesting that Canon has nothing to lose by losing customers, I guess I don't buy into that line of thinking. Just because there will be someone to buy the camera that I might have, they've still (ultimately) lost a sale. Annoying people by unnecessarily raising prices is exactly how a company 'at the top' begins to erode their own position in the market.
I could be just about as happy with a D2x/D200 combo (in some ways, happier), and at this point, switching becomes more and more viable, financially. And yes, at some point it does indeed become the principle of it....Show more →
what i'm suggesting is that there are more then enough people here on this forum and elsewhere to sell the first batches at premium pricing. with a hot new item historically the first 30-90 days are where the coop dealers will maximize their profit off those gotta have early adopters. intro the product just before summer season. graduations and weddings and i need it for vacation. after that there will a loosening of pricing and eventually get to the more resistant ones. its marketing 101.
since when do marketing professionals have principles?
the only real erosion will come when they screw up technically. you produce the product that does the job and you really don't have a nearest competitor that does the equivelent gives you a bit of latitude as long as you don't over do it. and that over do it line is a matter of perspective for all. the marketing department knows about price resistance believe me. it is a black art they do so well.
yes you may. but as PT Barnum said: "there is a sucker born every minute". and a former GM exec also said: "there's an a@@hole for every carseat". as long as they support the dreams and needs of their loyal follows it will be awhile.no company remains at the top forever but darn if they're not going to try and get what they can while their are there.
look how many of our members within 6 months of a new product coming out already start speculating and frothing for the next big thing. they are like sheep to the slaughter. and we all suffer from it in some way or another.
Robert Lajoie wrote:
I do think it was unfortunate that when the camera was first announce the $3,999.99 was stated(suggested) I think had it been announces at $4,500.00 no one would have questioned the value or fairness of the product.
Jeff wrote:
I completely disagree with that assertion, at least from my perspective. These high-end dSLR products are now maturing to the point that the price points should be incrementally dropping over time, even with perceived performance/IQ improvements. Canon knows they are in the driver's seat, and will apparently remain so for some time into the foreseeable future. There is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be lowering the price points on the high end as they are on the low end, except for the fact that they know that all of the pro sports/PJ/PR shooters that the camera is aimed at will pay it, regardless. ...Show more →
This is true for some product but not others look at cars. Cars prices do not go down year from year just becasue the techoligy is matured. They get inhansed and increase in price with every new model released.
Digital camer's are not as mature as other products Appiences Stoves refigerators and there is a lot more R&D costs for cameras that have to be recoped in a shorter life cycle. I do not mind getting a better product today for the same price as a older less fetchered produt was 2 years ago.
I know you do not agree and that fine but i think if canon had here the new MKII it's faster then the II it has better ISO and 6400, Live view, it's liter has a biger screen and improved inerfas and it the same price that the MKII was anounse at people would be saying Great deal
Edited by Jeff on Mar 29, 2007 at 12:06 PM GMT (Reason: quote for clarity)
As soon as Canon has some real competition, then prices will start to drop. Until then, they pretty much control the market.
I don't see anyone out there with anything that can touch the 1D3. Canon is smart to charge $4,500. I wish it were cheaper, but I can certainly understand their business reasons for doing this. Those who can't afford it (including myself at least for now), well we are just not the target market at this point. After all the serious pros get their bodies, then Canon will start doing a rebate program, or drop the price, to get the rest of us in another 6-9 months.
I completely disagree with that assertion, at least from my perspective. These high-end dSLR products are now maturing to the point that the price points should be incrementally dropping over time,
Nope. A maturing market implies that there is competition, with multiple vendors offering competing products with similar features, thus driving down prices and squeezing out margines.
What makes you think that the 1D3 is in a mature market? You're way off on this one.
The only area where the DSLR market is maturing is at the entry-level, where you now have multiple players (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc) offering similar capabilities all under $900.
But up at the top end - the pro market - it's nowhere close to a mature market.
As stated before cars do not get cheaper every year just because the technology is matured. I have also seen where a new car is hot at the release and forget MSRP the dealer will charge whatever he can get remember the original Mustang and other cars like that. If you wanted the first you paid a premium far above the sticker price. I believe thats bad business practice especially in this type of arrangement where its more of a business to business with Professional Photographers and you want a long standing relationship.
I whish Canon would come out with the reason why they originally announced 3,999.99 if it was a mistake state it
I completely disagree with that assertion, at least from my perspective. These high-end dSLR products are now maturing to the point that the price points should be incrementally dropping over time,
I did not say that I copied thet response from someone else i agree with you I just do not know how people insert other's responses in the diferent color
To announce a price is quite a big deal. The white paper was reviewed by many within Canon I'm sure, especially the price being quoted. To release information like that is not taken lightly by any company.
I would have placed my order even if it was around at $4999. Just the principle of it all kind of sucks.
I would love to hear them explain the 'mistake'.
Edited by asimsoofi on Mar 29, 2007 at 02:24 PM GMT
They are not the only reputable supplier still offering the cam at $3999.00. because at this point I don't think Canon has committed to anything price-wise.
Jeff wrote:
And, for the record both the quote and the secondary response are out of context (given the rest of my thoughts). I fully agree that the market has not matured, which is why the 'inflationary' scenario isn't yet applicable, and why price points should continue to drop, as they have on the low-end consumer products.
The 1 series isn't a low end consumer product. I'm guessing (as we all are) that the intended market for the item will take on the higher percentage price increase. The same for others that really need or want the product. Count me in the latter - I'm having to use my cc to pay for it at either price. We're talking about 12%, and many of us are saving close to that when we buy online. Plus if it's $4999.99, we're talking about a $500 difference, not $5000.
