I just spoke with Consumer Protection (Government of Ontario agency)
They are indeed allowed to change the price due to unforeseen circumstances. However, as a consumer who has put down a deposit (your issue is with Henry's, not Canon) you have three options:
1. Demand a full refund (the law states that you are entitled to this without any question)
2. Pay the full price and shut it
3. Bargain to see if there can be an amicable agreement - which is probably the best option at this time.
Those are your "Canadian" options. I don't know US law.
Good luck. I've already resigned to losing the battle.
I think there would be a huge difference with and w/o the noise reduction activated. I believe the D3 and D700 has more aggressive noise reduction than the 1Ds Mk III, and in the 5D Mk II we may see a stronger noise reduction too - so now the files (with the noise reduction turned on) may appear to look very similar to the Nikon files for the lack of noise .... and detail.
Mel Gross wrote:
My friend Lloyd, who has done extensive testing, and photography with both, thinks the Nikons have the best s/n and dynamic range he's ever seen, esp at higher ISO's.
I often think about high ISO noise, and how it relates to low ISO photos.
I've come to the conclusion that no matter how good noise is at lower ISOs, unless it's pretty good at higher ones, you're limited as to what you can do with the image.
If you shoot at 200, and need to bring the shadow detail back by a stop, then you've now made those shadows effectively 400. If you go two stops brighter, they are 800, etc.
If you start shooting at 400, the situation is a stop worse all around.
He's found that you can bring badly underexposed photos taken with the D3/700 back from the dead, where other cameras can barely get a usable image. I tend to agree from the shooting I've done with a friends D700. I couldn't do that with the 1Ds mkIII, though with low ISO photos that didn't need manipulation, the difference wasn't too much worse, but it was worse.
The 5D is about equal through 400, and begins to fall back. Still close at 800, but 1600 isn't. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
Speaking of stitched photos, here's a stitched shot of Zabriskie Point made with a 5D. This shot would be so much better detail-wise with a 21MP 5D II.
No offense, but 21MP wouldn't have done that shot much more justice. Perhaps if you were pixel peeping yes, but in terms of a print not likely.
Almost everything is denominated in US dollars. Quite a few products in many industries, as well as most commodities, such as oil, are priced in US dollars.
As currencies move against the dollar, the prices in those currencies will change. The actual amount of money Canon is getting will be the same though. If Canon kept the price the same, they would lose money on every sale.
How much of the price increase is due to Canon, and how much is due to the dealers and distributers, can be difficult to determine.
Canon will change prices to track the currency, the dealers may very well jack it up beyond that to get more profit from what will be a hot product.
Find out how much the Canadian currency is worth vs the dollar, and see what the new price is. If it's raised much beyond that, it's most likely the dealer taking advantage. Don't forget that many dealers will jack prices up on new, popular, items until supply meets demand anyway.
Normally, manufacturers will eat some if the exchange rate losses. But if it's too much, they can't.
davewolfs wrote:
No offense, but 21MP wouldn't have done that shot much more justice. Perhaps if you were pixel peeping yes, but in terms of a print not likely.
I would agree with what you said if you are viewing low-res images on the computer, but I think you are wrong (no offense) when it comes to prints.... and I mean large prints. I have seen large-prints of images from the 1Ds Mk III and the detail just blows me away - I could not get that kind of detail from my 5D files.
wkhc168 wrote:
The day after the announcement, my salesman at Vistek called me to let me know that I can place an order but it required a "non-refundable" deposit of 15% of the list price. So that means that it is a binding contract and if I decided to not buy it, I would lose my deposit. So why is it that it is ok now for them to cancel the order unless I agree to pay $300 more?
If you agreed to pay 15% of the list price, and the list price went up, then, according to your agreement, you would need to increase your deposit.
Mel Gross wrote:
If you agreed to pay 15% of the list price, and the list price went up, then, according to your agreement, you would need to increase your deposit.
Hey Mel .... whose side are you taking? Just kidding.
bobbytan wrote:
I think there would be a huge difference with and w/o the noise reduction activated. I believe the D3 and D700 has more aggressive noise reduction than the 1Ds Mk III, and in the 5D Mk II we may see a stronger noise reduction too - so now the files (with the noise reduction turned on) may appear to look very similar to the Nikon files for the lack of noise .... and detail.
Turning off the noise reduction as much as possible in all the cameras results in pretty much the same rankings.
Happy to hear that ..... as that means (in my books anyway) that the D3 and D700 are really not better than the 1Ds Mk III. And that the 5D Mk II may beat all three.
Mel Gross wrote:
Turning off the noise reduction as much as possible in all the cameras results in pretty much the same rankings.
bobbytan wrote:
Hey Mel .... whose side are you taking? Just kidding.
I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing firm years ago, until we sold it. I was also a partner in a commercial photo lab until 4.5 years ago, until we sold that.
I'm pretty familiar with this from both ends. I don't want to sound smug, but I'm pretty conversant with how this works.
As a consumer, I'm never happy when prices go up, but as someone who was involved in raising prices (and sometimes lowering them) for similar, and other reasons, I understand why it happens.
No manufacturer is ever happy about raising prices. All other companies will be watching this, and following suit sooner or later, unless they hope to gain marketshare from it, and are willing to lose money to do so, as Sony has been doing.
I'm really not on anyone's "side". But the motives from Canon, at least, aren't to rip anyone off. I can't say the same for the dealers.
By the way. I had a bad magenta cartridge for my IPF5100. I called Canon yesterday morning, and I received my new (free) one this morning. These cost $75 US. I think that's pretty good service.
Too bad I have to leave now. I'll catch up later this evening.
I can empathize with this actually. I am in the printing industry and our printers in China have had to increase their prices like 30% earlier this year because of rising fuel, paper, other raw material costs, shipping/freight, etc .... and also because of the weakening US dollar, earlier this year anyway. I KNOW that it pains them to increase prices, as they risk losing orders or worse, losing clients altogether .... but they have little choice. I know too that they are NOT passing on all the increases to their customers i.e. they are absorbing some of the increase - in an effort to keep their customers and retain market share. You cannot pick a worse time to increase prices .... unless you have absolutely no choice. And when you make such a decision, you have to be prepared to lose orders to the competition .... but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Mel Gross wrote:
I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing firm years ago, until we sold it. I was also a partner in a commercial photo lab until 4.5 years ago, until we sold that.
I'm pretty familiar with this from both ends. I don't want to sound smug, but I'm pretty conversant with how this works.
As a consumer, I'm never happy when prices go up, but as someone who was involved in raising prices (and sometimes lowering them) for similar, and other reasons, I understand why it happens.
No manufacturer is ever happy about raising prices. All other companies will be watching this, and following suit sooner or later, unless they hope to gain marketshare from it, and are willing to lose money to do so, as Sony has been doing.
I'm really not on anyone's "side". But the motives from Canon, at least, aren't to rip anyone off. I can't say the same for the dealers.
By the way. I had a bad magenta cartridge for my IPF5100. I called Canon yesterday morning, and I received my new (free) one this morning. These cost $75 US. I think that's pretty good service.
Too bad I have to leave now. I'll catch up later this evening. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
I think there would be a huge difference with and w/o the noise reduction activated. I believe the D3 and D700 has more aggressive noise reduction than the 1Ds Mk III, and in the 5D Mk II we may see a stronger noise reduction too - so now the files (with the noise reduction turned on) may appear to look very similar to the Nikon files for the lack of noise .... and detail.
Depends on how large the print is, again were talking 30% resolution.
bobbytan wrote:
We would be too, but as luck would have it the US dollar is quite strong now against other currencies.
Yet our prices will not go down.
Kinda like gas prices. Amazing how fast they raise the prices when a barrel of oil raises. But when they plummet, gas prices SLLLLOOOOOWWWWWLLLLLLY come down. Ironic huh?
Kinda like insurance and electricity costs... Same thing. It's all about how much the consumer will bear. Right or wrong.
I got the letter from Henry's too. I think it's ridiculous.
I can understand how retailers would want to pass on the price increases to us, but somehow I feel that that is false advertising on their behalf, even if it is inadvertent and not under their control.
Since consumers were still drawn to purchase at the lower price, and then, given the option of canceling or paying the higher price. Seems to me they could get quite a few people to pay the higher price, especially since there is a long wait for the camera.
And even if it does have to do with world currencies, I think it's the retailers or wholesalers responsibility to eat the loss, as that is just the nature of their business- and their beef is with Canon, not with us. We ordered at the original price. If they have a right to raise the price on us, then we have the right to pre-order, and then demand a lower price. Somehow that doesn't make any sense. If they can't deal with fluctuating prices, then maybe they shouldn't take pre-orders for the product.
That's like selling a futures contract and then backing out on the deal when prices increase. Childish.
Even though there's no written agreement here, I feel that a good retailer should keep their word and that there is a moral obligation to deliver the product to the people that support your business, at the original price.
We as consumers should be entitled to purchase the item at the original advertised price, without retailers raising the price on us prior to delivery in a "take it or leave it" fashion, regardless of what reason it is for.
