Ok, I'm beginning to get a handle on the price of full frame kit here in the UK (where we always get screwed on camera kit prices by the way, and its not just the VAT):
D700 on release cost £2000 (body only including VAT)
Today D700 costs £1745 (body only including VAT - dealer Warehouse Express)
A900 just announced £1995 (body only including VAT - dealer Warehouse Express)
My assumption is that the A900 will discount to D700 price by January
So, I don't see how Canon's 5D replacement can come in at more than £2000 on release.
Anyone point out any flaws in my reasoning please?
Depends entirely on what Canon release. Maybe it'll be a higher spec camera than most of us assume. Maybe it'll just be a low priced entry level FF camera. It'll cost more than a 50D, and less than the 1DmkIII.
ulrikft wrote:
Where there early adopter issues with the 30d, 40d, 1d, 1ds, 1d II, 1ds II... etc?
(I'm seriously asking, did not know that there where).
The one bug I very vividly remember because it cost me a number of wedding photos was that the D60 in the 1.0.0 firmware was overwriting its own images. You would download the card and there would be simply images missing that you *knew* you took. It sucked.
The 1Ds3 had severe banding in "ISO Safety Shift" mode in the first firmware.
The only flaw I can think of is that Canon and Nikon have been staggering the features/prices of their bodies.
Given that the 50D is below the D300 in price, and there is nothing between the D300 - D700- D3 right now (well the 1D3 is between the D700 and D3 but it is a specialized body), the new body can slot in either between the D300 and the D700, or between the D700 and D3.
My guess is Canon will get aggressive here and launch the 5D2 with a lot more MP at about $500 less than the D700. This would be in line with the 50D's greater MP count/lower price vis a vis the D300.
However, they could choose to position this body between the D700 and the D3 (and maybe have a second, lower priced FF below the D700?), and basically sound the death knell of the APS-H bodies in the near future.
My guess is that, if the rumoured specs are to be believed, then the price of 5DII is not going to be less than D700, but more. To wit, 50D costs more than D90. And if it incorporates all the goodies that someone or other here indicates as "vital", such as great AF, 100% viewfinder, full weathersealing, dual cards, etc.. then it will cost more than D3. Which it should, 'cause D3 has these features, but only 12Mp and a traditional sensor as opposed to 21Mp and a novel sensor, plus DIGIC IV.
But where I agree, the yardstick for pricing is no longer the IDs, it is the D700/Alpha900/5D price point.
Vandit, if your reasoning is correct, and basing the cost on a camera between the D700 and D3, that would suggest the following UK price
D700 price (inc VAT) £1745
D3 price (inc VAT, from same dealer) £2700
Average price (and presumed 5Dmk2 price) £2225
Hmmmm, seems a little high to me because with Sony and Nikon so reasonable seems to me the market is going to expect affordability this time round, but what do I know! Of course we are just speculating but at least that's better than arguing about pop up flashes or poor old Eosfun.
I wish Canon would just release the damn thing, FM is getting techy with the suspense.
Nowhere Man wrote:
It's really to bad that the world of scientists spent all that money building the mother of all Hadron Colliders in Europe to look for Black Holes.
stanj wrote:
The one bug I very vividly remember because it cost me a number of wedding photos was that the D60 in the 1.0.0 firmware was overwriting its own images. You would download the card and there would be simply images missing that you *knew* you took. It sucked.
The 1Ds3 had severe banding in "ISO Safety Shift" mode in the first firmware.
wkhc168 wrote: http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html
People keep saying it has changed. To me it is the same. Has anyone compared the old and new pictures?
Looks unchanged to me.
Anyone who sees the EOS directly, without applying brightness increase in Photoshop, needs to calibrate their monitor. They have it set way too bright.
philber wrote:
My guess is that, if the rumoured specs are to be believed, then the price of 5DII is not going to be less than D700, but more.
... which is annoying. It'd be nice if one of these companies would say, "Hey, we have a better product than you AND we're charging the same amount as your are or less." The 5DII at rumored specs (21MP, 19-point AF, weather sealing, 100% viewfinder, etc.) would crush the market at $3000 considering what else is out there at this price. I'm guessing at $3500 or more it'd still sell like crazy though, which is sadly why Canon would charge more than $3000 for said specs. We haven't yet seen a good old fashioned price war in the mid to high end DSLR market, and I say it's high time we did.
Anyone who sees the EOS directly, without applying brightness increase in Photoshop, needs to calibrate their monitor. They have it set way too bright.
Anyone who sees the EOS directly, without applying brightness increase in Photoshop, needs to calibrate their monitor. They have it set way too bright.
It has changed, no doubt about it. Trust me, it is not a matter up for debate, it is a fact
I'd say that if you cannot see the change then YOU need to adjust or get a new monitor! I see the difference with a hazy, indistinct, "EOS.," and my monitor is slightly dark.
Canon is definitely having some fun yankin our chains...
Monito wrote:
Looks unchanged to me.
Anyone who sees the EOS directly, without applying brightness increase in Photoshop, needs to calibrate their monitor. They have it set way too bright.
Edited by Phil Bonner on Sep 10, 2008 at 07:47 AM GMT
Incorruptible wrote
I mean it's like farting in a lift... it's not going to kill anyone so it's harmless... except if it's you in the lift with the farter. It's pointless, obsessive, and very annoying... you'd think the original poster might have caught on... but the persistence despite the annoyance and clear complaints just shows disrespect and rudeness... like the person who farts in a lift... except this guy doesn't even bother to keep it silent... he seemingly is allowed to fart audibly....
You know, as I suggested before, it's not the fact that one person let's one slip in the elevator. Even if it's the same person everyday, one could just assume they have a GI problem and ignore it as their own little personal demon. Even if they smiled or chuckled a bit after doing so, I could still write it off as someone just being the person they need to be to get along in the world.
The real problem begins when (as a result of the first farter) others join in farting left and right in the elevator. To make matters worse, they then resort to debating said flatulation. Then fights erupt. Feelings are scored. Heads hang low departing the elevator (assuming one gets out alive).
So which aspect is the most worrisome? The original farter? The 'me-too' farters? Or the people who sit around at work all day and debate farting in elevators?
I don't know the answer, all I know is that it smells around here!
David Baldwin wrote:
Vandit, if your reasoning is correct, and basing the cost on a camera between the D700 and D3, that would suggest the following UK price
D700 price (inc VAT) £1745
D3 price (inc VAT, from same dealer) £2700
Average price (and presumed 5Dmk2 price) £2225
Hmmmm, seems a little high to me because with Sony and Nikon so reasonable seems to me the market is going to expect affordability this time round, but what do I know! Of course we are just speculating but at least that's better than arguing about pop up flashes or poor old Eosfun.
It does seem high. I actually do think that the 5D2 will be priced lower than the D700. The main reason is - I dont really see Canon giving up the lowest-priced FF camera to Nikon, not after 3 years of having the only mid-priced FF body. Also, a $3500 FF body will leave too large a gap between the 50D and itself.
So to me, that implies having better resolution/fewer features than the Nikon (same as 50D/D300) - if so, the 21MP/19AF/non weather-sealed concept for $2500 seems about right.
The only way I can see them having a FF body higher than the D700 is if they also have a second FF body lower than it. But then, this is Canon we are talking about - 95% of what they do is reasonable and then there is that remaining 5% of strangeness (direct print, anyone?).
Interesting... I took a screen shot of the camera/moon deal, inverted it and you can clearly see the 'EOS', 'Canon' and the fact that it is a huge lens on the camera. My guess is that it is either a new 24-70/105 f2.8L IS (which would be HOT!) or just Canon showing off their 85L as usual.. Also interesting that they VERY deliberately are blocking off the bottom of the camera.. Makes one wonder whats beneath it
BTW - gotta love being the graphic artists on this one.. Sitting there looking at the full image, browsing through here laughing their butts off, maybe having some EOSfun too...
Fred Relaix wrote:
EOSfun is contributing to this forums more and better than many others, and I am personally way more annoyed by all the blind fanboys floating around here.
First its his screenname. 2nd: EOSfun is funny! 3rd: EOSfun also posts interesting comments, too. 4th: If one or 2 or even 5 do not like that permanent repeated "Have EOSfun" why you are angry? Its easy just to ignore the posts. His avatar shows his wifes Volkswagen EOS. Is it really worth to think about it? Telling anybody again and again "its annoying" is not less annoying.
Nowhere Man wrote:
It's really to bad that the world of scientists spent all that money building the mother of all Hadron Colliders in Europe to look for Black Holes.
If only they had discovered this thread first.
!
This thread is a kind of "Lost" island from which nobody can get out (besides Jeff), where unions get created, fights break out, personalities are revealed, little by little...
A number of people will go unemployed in a few days
