wickerprints wrote:
At this point, all prices are speculative since Canon has not officially set the MSRP. How are we to know which source is reliable?
(crossing fingers for a low price )
Canon USA press release. Prices are in the press release. Admittedly they state they are "approximate retail price of ..."
Used to be that they announced MSRP and we all guessed what street price would be (but Canon had control over the lowest advertisable price). Now Canon announce figures that don't play that game and the expected retail price IS street price.
Clearly Canon's been listening to all the pros that have been whining, that now anyone can take good photos cutting into their income, and Canon looks like they agree. New pricing will once again push gear into the realms only pros can afford. By the time the entire L line-up has been mk II'ised, not much will be affordable any more.
Roll on the $10K 1Ds IV.
So no 24-70 II, no 100-400 II, no 200-400 f/4, no 50 f/1.4 II, no 12/14-24/28 f/4.
70-300 f/4.5-5.6L, ugh, why bother, that super slow for a an L 300. Should have made it 70-300 f/4L IS, of course then it costs $2K.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
New pricing will once again push gear into the realms only pros can afford. By the time the entire L line-up has been mk II'ised, not much will be affordable any more.
.
I wouldn't be confident that this is true. Self-employed pros need to give careful consideration to the bottom line, and, if new equipment isn't going to provide net gains in their revenue streams, they need to take a pass on the new equipment. I've visited galleries of several very successful pros, both Nikon and Canon shooters, who are using both lenses and bodies that are one or even more generations old. When they don't see that a Mark II lens is going to make any significant impact in the quality of their photos that will also increase the sale of their prints, they are sticking with their older equipment.
Further, the pros who are working for print media that buys their equipment are faced with a similar situation. As the internet has cut into circulation for print media, profit margins, even if they exist, are slim, and those in charge of the budgets are looking for any way possible to cut expenses. If they don't see upgrading equipment as a way of improving their bottom line, they aren't going to do it.
On the other hand, when I go to a high school football game or to a wildlife refuge, that is where I see the recreational shooters using the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark III bodies, and that is where I see the latest and most expensive lenses. I'm confident that I will also be seeing the Mark II super telephotos in the hands of the non-pros in those places, too. While there are many non-pros who, like many pros, can't afford the newest and most expensive equipment, my guess would be that a major portion of both Canon and Nikon's sales of new and expensive equipment is to the segment of non-pros who can afford (or think they can afford) to spend the big money.
)
