For what its worth... a Pro told me on Sunday at the Montreal Grand Prix that Canon will announce the 1D MK III N in the next few days. He was shooting with a Mk IIN, not a Mk III.
Their srp is a joke, I'm sure it will be £350 or so when released.
indeed the price is has got to be a joke but Jessops online and Warehouseexpress have pre orders at that price which is the same price as a 450d with the kit lens
450d Bdy only £459
450d W/kit lens 18-55 is £499
1000d Bdy only £499
1000d W/kit lens 18-55 is £579
so not only does the price seem the wrong way round but also the kit lens will cost twice as much if you order the 1000d with kit lens
If the pricing in the US holds up to expectations ($600/$700 body/kit), Canon has a real stinker on their hands. Picture yourself a new DSLR buyer with very little knowledge of SLRs. Which kit would you consider?
Put yourself in the mindset of someone who has never used a DSLR. The Nikon is behind on megapixels and lacks IS. The Canon has a crippled RAW frame rate and a HUGE price. The Sony has a "big zoom" and IS. The Olympus has simplistic AF sensors, but is very compact and has IS.
If I were a new buyer coming from a P&S, Canon would be a distant last place on my list. $700? That's "pro" money! At first blush I'd pick the Sony for its "bigger zoom", IS, and price. If I compared images I'd go with the Olympus for its excellent kit lens.
If Canon is going to offer a crippled camera, they need to offer it at an extremely low price. Priced at $350/$450 this camera would be a big seller, and would push a ton of new buyers into the Canon system, just like the film Rebels did. As is, it's an entry-level consumer body at a very high consumer price, with no obvious advantages to its target market.
I don't doubt Canon will sell a decent amount of these on name alone, but consumers who cross-shop these bodies aren't going to buy Canon.
"$200 lower" than XSi puts it at no more than $650 and that is probably high.
by xmas i'd bet you find this priced near it's competition. and it will sell great. the raw buffer crippling makes you realize the price can be set as needed relative to the market.
CKrueger wrote:
If the pricing in the US holds up to expectations ($600/$700 body/kit), Canon has a real stinker on their hands. Picture yourself a new DSLR buyer with very little knowledge of SLRs. Which kit would you consider?
Put yourself in the mindset of someone who has never used a DSLR. The Nikon is behind on megapixels and lacks IS. The Canon has a crippled RAW frame rate and a HUGE price. The Sony has a "big zoom" and IS. The Olympus has simplistic AF sensors, but is very compact and has IS.
If I were a new buyer coming from a P&S, Canon would be a distant last place on my list. $700? That's "pro" money! At first blush I'd pick the Sony for its "bigger zoom", IS, and price. If I compared images I'd go with the Olympus for its excellent kit lens.
If Canon is going to offer a crippled camera, they need to offer it at an extremely low price. Priced at $350/$450 this camera would be a big seller, and would push a ton of new buyers into the Canon system, just like the film Rebels did. As is, it's an entry-level consumer body at a very high consumer price, with no obvious advantages to its target market.
I don't doubt Canon will sell a decent amount of these on name alone, but consumers who cross-shop these bodies aren't going to buy Canon....Show more →
Glen_C wrote:
"$200 lower" than XSi puts it at no more than $650 and that is probably high.
by xmas i'd bet you find this priced near it's competition. and it will sell great. the raw buffer crippling makes you realize the price can be set as needed relative to the market.
I see what you mean, but it seems silly to introduce a camera with a too-high price, giving yourself room to drop the price to a competitive level later on. You're missing out on all the free marketing of a product launch, where you could make HUGE waves with a very low price.
This model seems nothing more than a stop-gap to get Live View and SD into the bottom of Canon's range. I see why they'd want those features in this segment, but it makes me wonder if we won't see a "1500D" before Christmas?
Considering the Live View vs 1.5fps difference and the price parity, I'd say the 1000D is the first downgrade Canon has ever offered over its previous model (400D). If I were shopping in that bracket today I'd definitely pick up a 400D instead.
Canon's pricing reflects their desire to raise all prices and gouge if possible...
This camera looks and smells like a real loser vs the XTi and I hope Canon gets their butt kicked badly in the market. I certainly won't suggest anyone even consider it and will drive those that ask to Nikon or another mfg...
I didn't think it was possible, but I lose more respect that company every day....
CKrueger wrote:
I see what you mean, but it seems silly to introduce a camera with a too-high price, giving yourself room to drop the price to a competitive level later on. You're missing out on all the free marketing of a product launch, where you could make HUGE waves with a very low price.
This model seems nothing more than a stop-gap to get Live View and SD into the bottom of Canon's range. I see why they'd want those features in this segment, but it makes me wonder if we won't see a "1500D" before Christmas?
Considering the Live View vs 1.5fps difference and the price parity, I'd say the 1000D is the first downgrade Canon has ever offered over its previous model (400D). If I were shopping in that bracket today I'd definitely pick up a 400D instead....Show more →
Don't quite know what you mean. The current low end model, 450D, already has LV and SD. It is also cheaper than its predecessor, 400D. The 450D, not the 1000D, is the successor to the 400D. If someone wants to introduce a camera that's cheaper than the current low end model (450D), I would totally expect it to be a stripped version of the current model. So while as a 1Ds3 owner I don't see any appeal in the 1000D, I see it as a legitimate new low-end model.
It was my impression that the 1000D replaces the 400D, while the 450D lives on as a high-end consumer camera. I believe the 450D was launched at a higher price than the 400D was launched at. The 450D certainly slotted in above the 400D when it was introduced, and the 400D lived on after the 450D launch.
Comparing Canon to other makers after the 1000D is launched, Canon's cheapest kit is $650-$700 (depending on launch price), while everyone else has a model at $500 or $550. And comparing capabilities the Canon kit beats the Nikon (IS versus no VR), but doesn't beat Olympus/Sony/Pentax. It seems Canon considers their name a feature.
The only people I see being drawn to the 1000D are new DSLR users who absolutely MUST have a Canon. Existing DSLR users will look at the features and keep what they have or turn to a 450D. New DSLR users who are open to other brands will pick up a Nikon/Olympus/Sony/Pentax to save $200.
I don't doubt that it will sell. But that doesn't mean it isn't a piece of junk (at the price).
Stan has it right. The XSi kit was released at the price of $100 (US) less than the XTi kit at launch. In addition to being less expensive, the XSi kit also comes with a stabilized lens vs. the XTi. The 1000D will compete in price with the Sony A300, Nikon D60 and Pentax K200D, which are also 10mp, but lack live view and a couple of other features the 1000D will have. As direct competition to the new baby Canon, only the Olympus 420 with its choice of two kit lenses offers comparable live view and price point.
The Sony A350 is currently priced thirty dollars less at Amazon vs. the XSi, both with kit lenses, so these two compete very well. With the Canon you get cleaner higher ISO values, better AF, brighter (much) viewfinder, and a better kit lens. It seems to me Canon knows exactly what they are doing in positioning the new 1000D in the market. Clearly the best bang for your coin is still Nikon's 6mp D40 (about $450 US with non IS kit lens) but this camera, like the D60 and D40x, won't AF with many of Nikon's glass offerings, including the 50mm primes, and features a less advanced AF system, fewer bracketing options and no live view. Again, I think Canon knows what they are doing with the new baby Rebel.
