i talked to my local Ritz guy, i generally dont go in that place too often, but i figured i would ask him about this camera. he said end summer and it would be around the price of a 5D, and i thought the 5d had fallen alot making them pretty cheap?
Probably mainly down to demand.
If Canon got flooded with interest, likely from the big chains thinking it is time to replace their IDII's, then the easiest way of keeping demand in bounds is to let the price rise a bit - could have taken them by surprise a bit, too.
The currency exchange rates won't have helped in the States either - the price differential in Europe and the UK doesn't seem to be quite as great as usual, this time, I believe, although I haven't checked closely.
To some degree they may be letting their retailers do their own thing on prices, too.
If you have any questions please let us know. We can be reached by phone during business hours at 1-800-222-4070 (Monday - Friday, 9:00am-6:00pm EST) or via e-mail by replying to this e-mail.
My dealer told me the day the 1D Mark III was officially announced back in February that the price would be $4,000.00....and I was first on the list when one arrived.
I spoke with them the other day and the Canon rep said the camera would be available late April-mid May.
No guys....don't give up! I REALLY need to pick up one of those low mileage MkIIN's you were going to jettison for the new guy on the block. Looks like there may not be as many flooding the market.
As someone who was looking to get a MkIII to improve on my 30D, the 4k price was really going to stretch me, and now the $4,500 is more then I can justify. It's my own fault. When I saw the $3,999 I convinced myself it was do-able, and I got excited like a kid at Christmas.
So now I'll hold onto what I have and look for a better solution down the road.
Mason
www.masonibas.com
Edited by SabinoSam on Mar 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM GMT
One of the things that seems to be forgotten or ignored is that $4000 is a lot of money for a camera body. Given responses to my earlier thread I expect to get thouroughly flamed for making this heretical statement but so be it. Believe it or not, I fully recognize that if I don't like the price I don't have to buy it. I also recognize that I can change brands if I so desire. I also recognize that some people will need the new features right away and can justify the cost from a business perspective while others have the means to indulge themselves and spend what they like on their hobby. Good for them but that doesn't change the fact that $4K is a lot of money for a body.
Edit by Hrow - don't take this to mean that I think the 1DMkIII is a bad camera or not worth the price or that I don't recognize that there are lots of improvements, or that other cameras cost more or that older models won't lose their ability to shoot, or ,or, or. It is simply a statement of fact.
PS. Jeff has raised the most salient point that I have seen on any discussion of the 1DMkIII. The elevation of the price point for the performance level is virtually unprecedented and well worth noting as it may ultimately be a far more important change than the 1DMkIII itself.
SabinoSam wrote:
No guys....don't give up! I REALLY need to pick up one of those low mileage MkIIN's you were going to jettison for the new guy on the block. Looks like there may not be as many flooding the market.
As someone who was looking to get a MkIII to improve on my 30D, the 4k price was really going to stretch me, and now the $4,500 is more then I can justify. It's my own fault. When I saw the $3,999 I convinced myself it was do-able, and I got excited like a kid at Christmas.
So now I'll hold onto what I have and look for a better solution down the road.
Mason
www.masonibas.com
Edited by SabinoSam on Mar 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM GMT...Show more →
Ditto. I had convinced myself that 3999.00 was resonable for me to upgrade from a 20D to a 1DmarkIII, however, at 4500.00, it is a stretch. That 1200 difference from a markII N (new) and 1800 (used) is a hard pill to swallow, and that money will go a long way toward getting me into a 400 2.8 L IS or a 500mm 4.0 L IS lens.
No question 4.5K is a stretch for many of us and it is likely the price would be significantly lower if there were more competition but until we see how this camera performs in relation to the Mk II N, it's hard for me to judge how I will feel about the price. I expect the image quality to be significantly better at all ISOs. If that's not the case, I will be disappointed. If that is the case, I am likely to be happy (once I pay off my credit card) and I will continue to be grateful to Canon for producing the best pro cameras on the market..
I would guess Canon did think they could (and should) add the extra .5K not only because of the sparse competition but because the US dollar has fallen so far in the past two years. I do think Canon had a hard time with this upgrade, probably starting with the chip fabrication, and going right on through all the electronic changes they made to the camera. They also seem to have done considerable research with their customer base to produce a camera that really responds to the input they've gotten from users of the 1D Mk IIs.
Compared to changes in film cameras, digital upgrades are not trivial. While Canon has been making significant changes since the introduction of the current mount, I don't think the R&D budget back then bears any relation to what it is now. Obviously that's the biggest reason we're paying a very high price for this technology. Will prices ever come down? I suspect they will, but really we're still in the very early stages of digital. (Who remembers what was available just six years ago?).
Comparing the R&D and market for high-end digital cameras to basic "appliances" like HD TV & computers may be misleading. Canon is doing much of its own R&D by itself. The computer & TV industries are being developed by hundreds of companies leap-frogging each other and contributing new technologies.
The link takes you to a checkout that is for a "Pre-order" and the small print listed below under pricing has this, "All prices are subject to change without notice or obligation." I hope you really get it for 4K, but don't write the check yet.
Perhaps everyone should wait it out a few months. At least I will for now. Dropping $4000-5000 is large amount for the majority, and even for the minority of irresponsibly rich. It'll be a business write off for me, but still have to put the money up first.
My current equipment works great and I'm quite happy with the results.
I think everyone really needs to ask themselves if they really 'need' the camera. Assess your requirements carefully. I know I am.
I think the 'wise' thing to do is for me to spend some of the saved money on marketing, get a few jobs, and use that money to buy the Mark III later
One of the issues that everyone has ignored goes like this... many people here seem to be saying a $500 increase isn't that much to pay and that anyone who doesn't agree with them should just ante up and stop whining or go off and shoot Nikon. That may be true if you are buying just one body but what if you are buying lots? What if you are a newspaper buying 10 bodies? That's a $5000 increase. Still trival in the face of declining ad revenues? Probably not. What if you are a kids sports shop and have 10 shooters? Is $5K more trival? You might pay it but I can't see you being thrilled.
$500 is the increase only for buyers whose multipler is 1. If you are buying 5, 10, 20 or 100 try feeding your purchasing manager the same line about how Canon has a right to make a profit and see if they approve the modification to your PO if you had originally told them it would be $4K.
I'm not a pro but I was planning on buying at $4000. I'll definitely hold off for now, depending on the early reviews to decide if improvements are worth it over the price of a IDMKIIN. The decision makers at canon monitor pre-release opinion of their products, all the internet praise and anxious calls to dealers for the IDMKIII have cost at least the early buyers extra money. People have short memories and it will happen again. Kind of like an injured wildebeest walking in front of a lion shouting,"over here!"
I'm frankly perplexed by all the angst the price of this camera is causing around here. $4000 or so seems perfectly in line with the pricing for Canon's 1 series 1.3 crop camera. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this camera is one of Canon's flagship cameras and is targerted at professional photographers, not hobbiests or amatures. Hobbiests and others have many other suitably priced cameras from which to chose. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that the dollar is weak which doesn't help the pricing situation at all. Canon is not a charitable organization devoted to supplying professional level cameras to every photographer in the world. Instead, Canon is a corporation whose major responsibility is to make its shareholders as much money as possible (e.g. to maximize profits, among other things) and Canon's marketing decisions are made on that basis.
Would it be nice to have a weather sealed, high performance Canon DSLR in the mid rice range, ala the Nikon D200? You bet, but to expect one of Canon's 2 flagship DSLRs to be affordable to hobbiests is asking too much from Canon.
Oh, and I'm saving my pennies and selling prints in anticipation of buying whatever replaces the 1Ds2 and fully expect to pay $8000 or more becasue we all know that's the price of admission into the Canon flagship DSLR world.
