They are replacing 1D3 bodies with 1D2n bodies for a $600 fee.
Seems almost reasonable.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Yea I could see it now we send in are MK III and they send us are MK III with a new MK IIIn tag and new serial number plate and the 600.00 paid for the repair.
thedigitalbean wrote:
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.
If you remember, I started a thread last year about what Canon should do. That included an almost free exchange of the 1DMIII for the 1DMIII-next.
I would guess that a traded 1DMIII plus less than $1000 will get you a 1DMIIIN. It has always been my contention that Canon will make this right. Since they are obviously having some issues fixing the problem, this will make it right.
They are replacing 1D3 bodies with 1D2n bodies for a $600 fee.
Seems almost reasonable.
Offering a 1DMIIN (TWO-N) in exchage for a 1DMIII (THREE) would be equivalent to marketing suicide. They would be admitting that the newer camera was not as good as the older PLUS charging you for it. Not going to happen.
Canon, or more appropriately, Canon dealers will be more than happy to take excessive funds from suckers, oops, I meant to say 'early adopters,' and actually should. Why not, if they are willing to pay, why should the dealer not take it. It actually might make commercial sense for some photographers (or agencies) if they can get more sales because the lens performs where other lenses will not.
Once they run out of early adopters, however, the price will have to lower to a competitive level, or the lens will not sell in sufficient quantities. I just can't believe that anyone would fall for some marketing nonsense about a "new pricing model." Supply and demand baby, same as it always was.
I'll reiterate my earlier prediction here: Under $4K in a year or less, settling to $3500.
wilsonprince wrote:
This lens could be one of Canon's best ever, and if so then people will buy a whole lot of em.
The 200 1.8 is considered one of, if not THE best lense ever produced by Canon...
It tanked.....
If Nikon had never released the 2.0 VR, we would never have seen this lense..
really? I just assumed that the 200 1.8 must have been a top seller. I think this lens would have eventually appeared...people seem to like IS. Nikon might have sped its appearance up a little though.
wilsonprince wrote:
really? I just assumed that the 200 1.8 must have been a top seller. I think this lens would have eventually appeared...people seem to like IS. Nikon might have sped its appearance up a little though.
Considering it disappeared in 2004, how many did you think they sold
If Nikon doesn't introduce their's, Canon never produces the 2.0.
Anyone else notice how those saying that it is going to be $4k are at best, citing references and trends that are more than 6 years old.
And anyone who is saying it sucks but it's going to be $6k and not settle a whole lot lower longer term, are citing references and trends that are less than 3 years old.
Dream all you want. Bitch all you want. But when you have links like these:
Well? Show me a single credible counter (okay I grant Amazon isn't the best, but it's certainly better than something with a 0.7 lifetime resellerratings score)...
Hey, I'd love to date Jessica Biel (as she was cited in an earlier post); but some things just aren't realistic.
-C
Ps. To those who are simply calling Canon stupid and idiotic and "moving to Nikon". This is GREAT news for EVERYONE! You're getting a vastly superior system, and I can take some of that old worthless Canon crap off your hands! Let me know what you're selling! I'm always in the market for some good cheap used gear!
cad3 wrote:
Anyone else notice how those saying that it is going to be $4k are at best, citing references and trends that are more than 6 years old.
And anyone who is saying it sucks but it's going to be $6k and not settle a whole lot lower longer term, are citing references and trends that are less than 3 years old.
Yep, I know. I've mentioned this about 3 times in three different threads here on FM along with a couple of DPR as well. I was really hoping Dark Slider would take my bet, would have been easy money .
I'm not so sure that I need a F2 200mm lens (either the Nikkor available now or the Canon ater) because my D3 set @ ISO 6400 will let me enlarge up to 24x35.' That leaves the sole reason to buy a F2 200mm as a $5K bokey(izer) which may/should be possible in PS.
Which is another way of saying buy a $5K super ISO body (D3 or what ever Canon soon makes to compete with it) and double the speed of ALL your lenses (as compared to my MKIII's ISO of 3200).
SoundHound. True as your statement might be a large proportion of people, there will always be folks for whom even with ISO 6400 the extra stop to f/2 would be useful. It would allow them to take/keep shots that they might currently be discarding due to insufficient light.
They sold about 7500+/- of the 200 1.8s. Not exactly pocket change when you consider they were about $4500 new (the 300 2.8 @ the time was about $4600, this in late 90s).
Undoubtedly Canon had this in development before Nikon came out with their 2.0 VR lens.
I too think the price will have to settle below the 300 2.8IS for it to be taken seriously.
It will almost certainly be better than the 1.8 in all respects. Canon has yet to make a long white tele that didn't significantly better it's predecessor.
Let me know what you're selling! I'm always in the market for some good cheap used gear!