# Newsflash on 5D mark III price: It's cheaper than the 5D II intro price



## Radiating (Mar 2, 2012)

I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. Lets just look at the numbers:

Canon 5D Mark II intro price: 300,000 Yen
Canon 5D Mark III intro price: 270,000 Yen

Canon has always been a very rigid company with it's introductory pricing and has always priced successive products at the exact same price as previous generations, adjusted for inflation for the last 20 years. Their pricing has been so extremely consistent it deviates from the inflation rate in Japan less than a fraction of a percent. Their pricing is very similar to what Apple does in this way. The 5D Mark III marks the first time in history that Canon has *ever* priced a new generation of a product lower than the last generation.

If you have issues with the dollar amount complain about the devaluing of the US dollar, not about Canon.

I think the 5D III is a monumental upgrade, and the fact it's being offered for less than the last version was at introduction is all the more amazing.

Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue. If history is any indication the price will be cut in half over the next few years too


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 2, 2012)

Waawaaa. You gotta pay to play. Just looking at the high ISO sample images of the MKIII, I'm happy to pay a $500 premium for it over the D800. This thing is a low-light monster.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Waawaaa. You gotta pay to play. Just looking at the high ISO sample images of the MKIII, I'm happy to pay a $500 premium for it over the D800. This thing is a low-light monster.



Agreed not to mention the dynamic range improvements. Canon released a Nikon D3S with nearly twice the megapixels for nearly half the money. It's really an astonishing camera.


----------



## jrista (Mar 2, 2012)

Not really sure where your getting your inflation data. According to this page: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, based on CPI inflation, *$2999 in 2007* is about the same as *$3278 today*, due to a change in inflation of 9.3%. 

You could try to factor in commodities inflation, however those are fairly volatile markets, and month-by-month inflation or deflation in commodities (which can indeed be extreme over the short term) are not nearly as severe over the long term.

I think the 5D III is a bit over priced regardless. Based on CPI inflation, its about $300 more than it should be if we just accounted for inflation. It certainly has a major boost to some key features, like AF, but I'm not sure that really matters in the face of highly competitive pricing from Nikon on their D800, placing it at $3000. Inflation of the D700 starting price of $2999 would indicate that an equivalent pricing today of about $3157. (So Nikon is underselling the D800 on an inflation-normalized price curve.)

Either Canon really thinks they have a whopper of a camera housed in the 5D III and it will sell like hotcakes regardless the price, or they will be dropping some huge rebates in a few months when sales don't pick up like they expect it to. (Personally, with the Olympics just around the corner, I think the 5D III will sell like hotcakes for a while, and rebates will drop a few months after.) Once sales drop off, Canon will have to get competitive on price, and I figure it will settle around $2999...in line with the D800 (and most peoples expectations of a fair price.)

(BTW, if $2999 in 2007 equaled $4200 today, that would mean we had *40% inflation* in about four years. There is NO WAY we've had that much inflation in four years. Its been about 1/4 that much on a normalized basis.)


----------



## Radiating (Mar 2, 2012)

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + *exchange rate*. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 2, 2012)

I suspect Nikon is not even making money on the D800. They are a small company who went through turmoil and think they can get some market share with the D800. I hope they succeed. Because go healthy compitation is good for all. i.e. customers.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 3, 2012)

Something else to bear in mind. I was reading through the specs earlier and it states in the CPN Europe article, that they have made the anti-aliasing filter thinner. Nikon are charging extra for the removal in the D800E. Of course, I don't know how the filter in the D800 compares.


----------



## jwong (Mar 3, 2012)

Radiating said:


> You're missing the point of the thread inflation + *exchange rate*. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.



Nikon is a Japanese company too and they chose to price the D800 for 3000. Does the exchange rate + inflation argument not apply to Nikon as well?


----------



## Radiating (Mar 3, 2012)

jwong said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point of the thread inflation + *exchange rate*. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.
> ...



I was addressing the perception of money versus the historical record.

You're addressing the problem of perception of money versus the current camera market.

The 5D III I think is even more of a bargain when you consider the market. The D800 is a high megapixel pro camera that is otherwise unremarkable. The 5DIII has 2 stops of improved low light performance, which is astounding to say the least, and it features 1 series build quality. Both of those are very expensive features to put in a camera. More megapixels are not an expensive feature. The 5D III is really like combining a D3X and the D3S into one body and charging half as much which is great, though not everyone wants the features.


----------



## randplaty (Mar 3, 2012)

Radiating said:


> I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked. So if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.



Good post. People are just mad that they can't afford this camera. They only had 3k saved, and if they had 3500 they would pay it... but they don't. Sucks for them.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 3, 2012)

Nothing but groundless rationalization. You can't pay, let alone feel better about high prices with historical BS. 

Whip out your Amex and deal. Or keep shooting with your old body, it still can take great photographs.


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 3, 2012)

randplaty said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked. So if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2012)

Radiating said:


> You're missing the point of the thread inflation + *exchange rate*. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.



First off, I'd like a more detailed explanation or a source of record that verifies Canon uses the model your claiming they do to set price. (I'm not sure "exchange rate" was stated in your original unedited post.) Even assuming they do set US price on the basis of inflation *and exchange rate*, it doesn't actually change the fact that in the world reserve currency, US DOLLARS, the introduction price of the 5D II was quite literally $2999. 

Exchange rate doesn't play a factor into the equation when you state "in today's dollars". We have had just over 9% inflation since 2007 (and actually, probably a bit less than that since September 2007), so if we are talking on an inflation-normalized basis...US Dollars are the only thing that matter when comparing the original USD price to the current USD price. The difference in price based on inflation is about $3200 today, or about $300 less than the $3500 it currently lists for.

I find that stating the original price of the 5D II was $4200 in USD to be very misleading. If you want to get the point across that I think you want to get, you might be better off doing it in Yen, and comparing the 5D II introductory yen price to the 5D III introductory yen price.



Radiating said:


> jwong said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon is a Japanese company too and they chose to price the D800 for 3000. Does the exchange rate + inflation argument not apply to Nikon as well?
> ...



In this respect, I don't disagree with you at all.  I too find both the D800 and D4 rather unremarkable outside of the surprising 36.3mp sensor of the D800. The 5D III, despite its unremarkable sensor resolution, is very remarkable in every other respect.


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 3, 2012)

Radiating said:


> You're missing the point of the thread inflation + *exchange rate*. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.



The Canon EOS 5D Mark II was launched in September 2008 @ $2,699 for body only.

Using your logic, but substituting in 'real' money i.e. GOLD, it cost 3.25 ounces of Gold (as Gold was $830/oz.)

Now the new 5D3 is $3,499 for body only, is approximately just 2 ounces of Gold (as today old is $1710/oz.)

Thus according to your rationale, the newer model is actually cheaper! 

Problem is, humans are irrational, they tend to look at the absolute amount, plus they go by experience that consumer electronics (computers/cameras/smartphones) become cheaper over time as the cost of the technology declines.


----------



## TAF (Mar 3, 2012)

OK, it's really quite simple.

The Mk II was $2700 at introduction. The exchange rate at the time was 110 yen to the dollar. Thus the MkII was 297,000 yen.

The Mk III is $3500. The exchange rate today is 81 yen to the dollar. Thus the Mk III is 283,500 yen.

Therefore the Mk III is cheaper, in the currency of the manufacturer - which is what counts. Canon may announce the price in dollars, but they operate the business in yen.

Yes, it sucks that it is so expensive. Complain to your congressman about the intentional devaluation of the USD. But that isn't Canon's fault.

I'm hoping the price drops by mid-summer. I want one for my next vacation.


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2012)

MikeHunt said:


> The Canon EOS 5D Mark II was launched in September 2008 @ $2,699 for body only.
> 
> Using your logic, but substituting in 'real' money i.e. GOLD, it cost 3.25 ounces of Gold (as Gold was $830/oz.)
> 
> ...



Whas it introduced in 2007 or 2008? (I may have been using the wrong date for my inflation calculations if it was released 2008...)


----------



## mjp (Mar 3, 2012)

_Whas it introduced in 2007 or 2008? (I may have been using the wrong date for my inflation calculations if it was released 2008...)_

September 17, 2008 was the 5DII announce date. 

I wonder how many people are going to get into debt over this new camera?


----------



## Meh (Mar 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> US Dollars are the only thing that matter when comparing the original USD price to the current USD price. The difference in price based on inflation is about $3200 today, or about $300 less than the $3500 it currently lists for.



I don't know if the OP (before edit) included exchange rate (it was there by the time I first read it earlier today) but it is relevant nevertheless. I also don't know if Canon uses the model that is being suggested but in response to your point, if you're a executive at Canon Japan, the only thing that matters is Yen and it's very reasonable to believe that Canon Japan is setting the price in Yen, converting to USD at current exchange rates, and possibly consider whether that price in USD is too high for the market. But even in the case that they did think the USD price was a bit high, I think it more likely they would set the list price as is, see what happens, and offer a behind the scenes discount to wholesalers so that the street price would go down rather than having a significant disparity in the list pricing. I know not if any of this is true or what really happens at Canon HQ... just my idle speculation.


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2012)

Meh said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > US Dollars are the only thing that matter when comparing the original USD price to the current USD price. The difference in price based on inflation is about $3200 today, or about $300 less than the $3500 it currently lists for.
> ...



Ok, valid points. Taking that into consideration:

Assuming an intro price of $2700 in late 2008, adjusted for inflation, that would be about $2850 today. If we account for the exchange rate, in Yen in 9/2008 (rate of about ¥106/$1) $2700 is about ¥286200...and in Yen in 3/2012 (rate of about ¥81/$1) $3500 is about ¥283500. As far as adjusting for inflation/exchange rate to the Yen is concerned, the difference in yen is about ¥2700, and in USD today that difference would be about $33.33. 

As far as I can tell, Canon introduced both cameras at roughly the same price point in their own currency.

I got my exchange rates from here (really quick bing search): http://www.x-rates.com/d/JPY/USD/hist2012.html


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 3, 2012)

Although I understand the need to understand/justify the pricing for this new object of desire, this is a most difficult exercise. 

We have no idea about the assumptions that are being made by Canon for the price point they are setting relative to the profit they feel is appropriate over the life of the product given the sunk development and marketing costs. Without knowing these assumptions we are left with an impenetrable veil to guess through. 

Basing a current pricing analysis on past history does have its problems. First, it assumes a fixed pricing strategy by Canon and perhaps Nikon as the leaders... and a willingness by both to maintain stasis or relative position. Two, the comparison with past models assumes that past pricing extrapolated to the present will, despite changes in input costs and technological change, produce a margin that will be acceptable. Three, pricing is not only connected to currency changes but also to local markets. The world wide local pricing for this camera varies beyond currency explanations (we have heard the squeals of real pain from our fellow international Canon lovers) . Four, inflation is only one factor in this drama.

My take on Canon is that they have a battle on many fronts in imaging and the competitors are now more diverse and quicker than ever. The DSLRs are still the flagships but this market is relatively limited when all of photography is fully considered. Many people are satisfied with just taking snapshots of limited quality and then putting them quickly on social network sites (requiring limited IQ....). I think we have all seen people with digital cameras and phones hardly taking the time to stop as they tourist around taking tons of pictures. A few of these folks will migrate to a DLSR or even a 5D Mk III but not that many. Many people have found a love for photography and are posting on flickr and other sites but many are happy with the results they get from point and shoots and iPhones for recording their lives and the things they enjoy sharing. It is a complex equation.

The greatest garlands for excellence in all the areas of fine art, commercial, wildlife, sport and reporting photography will, for the foreseeable future, go to a handful of camera manufactures and a very limited number of products. Like what happened with the film SLR market, we may be seeing an inflection point as new technologies will begin to attract the cool peeps from the DSLR to new lighter cameras (hello mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras - MILCs). We might be seeing the last of a great dinosaur line. It has been a great ride that will continue for the foreseeable future but maybe there will better ways to do what we love.

My feeling is that the 5d Mk III is a wonderful and appropriately expensive piece of equipment. A few hundred dollars (which is what many are quibbling over) will not stop a real professional with a thriving business - especially if he/she feels the IQ difference will secure or maintain a competitive advantage. The real problem with this pricing comes for the advanced or advancing enthusiasts of limited means. They may be having a tough time justifying the added expense with no attendant revenue - but the human mind is a very creative organ. Buying this body will certainly crimp other purchases in their lives not only in their hobby. It wouldn't be so hard if the camera was not so great!

I want one but I just can't justify it given I haven't peaked yet with the equipment I own and the time I have to dedicate to this adventure. I might spring for the replacement 7D should that ever come our way. See, we can justify anything even in one paragraph.

In the end we can only decide if this product is, at this time, worth the cost to us for what we are receiving. Canon has put in a marker and depending on how it goes will maintain, lower or raise the price. Nikon has made their play and we are all potential actors in this drama.


----------



## Meh (Mar 3, 2012)

@BobSanderson totally agree with you, we don't know what Canon considered in their pricing, and we don't know what their costs or margins are or other factors they may consider. Pricing strategy takes into account many variables beyond costs and margins. At the end of the day, the manufacturer is going to set the price at what they think will maximize long-term revenue not only for a particular product but also for the brand.

You raise an interesting point about pros not being so concerned with a few hundred dollars more or less. Not sure I agree entirely, some pros may be even more sensitive to price when they have to justify it against the extra revenue they might earn with a new body, lens, or other piece of gear. For example, if their 5D2 still works they might have to seriously consider what practical difference it makes to upgrade... for themselves they might know the IQ is better but will it make a difference to a client and will they get more work by having a new body? For an amateur no such justification needs to be made, either you want it and can afford it or not.

Maybe pros should be begging Canon to raise the prices even higher so that so many of us enthusiasts won't buy such great gear and think we can offer to shoot a friend's wedding for $500


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 3, 2012)

Seems to me that a whole host of factors and marketing strategies came into play, but the bottom line is they priced it at what they strongly felt the market would bear. I'd like to think that the price will eventually drift down, but it may not be until sometime next year. I was not around the Canon world when the 5D II initially came out. How long did its price take to drop from the original opening price? Also it appears all of the big camera stores are sticking to Canon's recommended price. I also wonder how long it'll take for refurbs to show up??!! It would probably knock off a 100 bucks or so the offering price. my 2c FWIW.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I used the exchange rate one month prior to the intro date as list prices in the various markets are invariably preconceived, though of course they might be using different number. Either way 76 Yen:USD was used for the 5DIII and 109 for the 5DII. Inflation was 7.8%. This results in $3500 vs $4170 USD. 

Canon's prices for the 5D Mark II in Japan was 300k Yen, and for the 5D Mark III is 270k Yen. The projected price should have been 320k Yen.

If you go to http://www.canon.com/camera-museum you can see all of Canon's lenses and their intro prices in Yen. You'll notice that since the 1990's Canon has had almost no deviation in it's intro prices in Yen when adjusted for inflation. For example the 14mm f/2.8 L I was 298k yen in 1991 and 14mm f/2.8 L II was 307k yen in 2007. This matches the inflation rate down to fractions of a percent and you'll find a similar patterns in the rest of Canon's lenses and bodies, though their historical body prices aren't listed on that site.


I will agree with BobSanderson that invariably local rebates and price cuts over time will have no easily predictable pattern, as that's how Canon's pricing really works. Canon does not introduce products at what the market can bear but instead at what they have historically charged. Canon then tweaks pricing to what the market can bear with discounts. My point was simply that Canon's introduction pricing has been incredibly consistent and it is clear Canon broke tradition to price the 5DIII lower than the 5DII to begin with.


----------



## dedrick427 (Mar 3, 2012)

Accounting for the inflation (or deflation?) of me not having a job in 2008 to now being an IT engineer: The Canon 5D Mark III is a buhzillion dollars cheaper the the Mark II at their respective release dates. Thus, it'd be economically stupid for me not to buy one. At least that's the economics that I'm using to justify the purchase.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 3, 2012)

iamsmrt said:


> You know, I would buy the "Yen has strengthened" argument, hence them jacking the price if.... it wasn't actually priced even MORE expensive in Japan than it is in the US.
> 
> Japanese price=358,000yen=4,377 USD
> 
> ...



Canon hasn't released official Japanese pricing yet, as of 3/3/2012, so my guess is those sites are just trying to price gouge people before the price is released. Confirmed world wide pricing pegs it around 270,000 Yen based on all of Canon's other pricing for their other products between regions. It makes no sense to charge so much more in Japan for it compared to all their other products as people will just buy gray market ones.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 3, 2012)

I wonder if the higher mkIII price has to do with trying to keep mkII sales going.


----------



## dbduchene (Mar 3, 2012)

All of this ignores mores law. Every 18 to once in while tech should have twice the capabilities at half of the cost. Marketing will drive the whole thing more then anything else. They will build the cheapest camera that they can sell at the highest price that they think that they can get. They are making a bet here and with the D800 time will tell if it was a good one. In business today the marketing department has more say in what we get and how much it cost than all of the other factors combined


----------



## 1982chris911 (Mar 3, 2012)

Just a quick reminder on how companies price goods today. 

There are pricing strategy consultants that do a lot of research on how to price such goods. I know of one such company that employs over 500ppl who do nothing else. Believe me, when I tell you that the rational for Nikon and Canon to price their products like they are priced takes exactly into account how much they can sell, how much discount they will give in the future after 6months, 1 year 2 years etc ... and how the competition will respond. Now don't get me wrong all I want to say is that the pricing even if ppl here don't like it follows a strategy that is probably planed to much greater detail than what you might think... 
So the 3500 USD against 3000 USD is exactly where both companies see their chances. 

Nikon needs market share (as it was loosing a lot the last few years), while Canon needs to become more profitable per unit sold ... but those are two different strategies so the target pricing shows the difference we see here now.


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 3, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> I suspect Nikon is not even making money on the D800. They are a small company who went through turmoil and think they can get some market share with the D800. I hope they succeed. Because go healthy compitation is good for all. i.e. customers.



I haven't read the whole thread but in case it hasn't been mentioned, Nikon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi which is a company with $250bn turnover. I doubt they're making a loss on the D800 but I agree that the competition is good for all consumers.


----------



## SebSic (Mar 3, 2012)

Just stop masturbation with exchange rates !!! Canon did take this in concideration establishing the final price.

$3500 is just a BIG priice. People who will say "No it is so cheap ..." ar just too rich to remember life cost ...
In my country(France), for the price of Canon 5D III plus 24 70 2.8 L II (3500€ plus 2500€ less 300€ for kit price = 5700€) I can buy a brand new car, or a moto. I can rent an appartment with 2 rooms for a year ....

For professional use, as this is the main "instrument", this is not "too" expensive.
But for amators like me, who just love photos, this price is really high, and I will need sacrifices (not human lol) to buy the dream kit (5D III + 24 70 L II)


----------



## K-amps (Mar 3, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> I suspect Nikon is not even making money on the D800. They are a small company who went through turmoil and think they can get some market share with the D800. I hope they succeed. Because go healthy compitation is good for all. i.e. customers.



Yes competition is great. We got so much value form canon all these years and the reason was competition. I am glad the D800 was released at 3k, puts some downward pressure on other bodies. 

BTW can a Business get insurance for loss of Business on such disasters... Is there such an insurance policy?


----------



## Raddy (Mar 3, 2012)

Well, there is some funny thing about something being "cheaper" when considering the inflation rates and such.
Assuming back in 2008 your the average salary was equal to the price of a 5D Mark II, did the salary got adjusted in the same way the current price of the 5D Mark III did?

If something is considered to be "cheaper" now, it would allow me to buy a higher amount of a certain product when putting it into relation of my current income. At least for me this is not the case...
My salary did not develop in a way the price for a similar product (5d Mark II/5D Makr III) did. 
So speaking of me, it can't be cheaper for me. ;-))


----------



## Meh (Mar 3, 2012)

Raddy said:


> Well, there is some funny thing about something being "cheaper" when considering the inflation rates and such.
> Assuming back in 2008 your the average salary was equal to the price of a 5D Mark II, did the salary got adjusted in the same way the current price of the 5D Mark III did?
> 
> If something is considered to be "cheaper" now, it would allow me to buy a higher amount of a certain product when putting it into relation of my current income. At least for me this is not the case...
> ...



Prices and cost of living have been rising faster than salaries for the last 20 years. That's part of what Occupy Wall Street was about... the 1% can buy a Canon 5D Mark III with little concern for the cost.


----------



## wamsankas (Mar 3, 2012)

apple computers havent really changed price in the past 6 years. they continuously offer new technology at the same price point. ipad 1 was 499 so will ipad 3.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Mar 3, 2012)

wamsankas said:


> apple computers havent really changed price in the past 6 years. they continuously offer new technology at the same price point. ipad 1 was 499 so will ipad 3.



This is really an apples an oranges argument here. Cell phone/computer makers have several other revenue streams that come from these devises which earn them way more than setting a huge price for their product. Itunes makes so much for apple that they can put lots of R&D into new stuff and sell it at a loss because they'll make up for it. For camera's, you have lenses, flashes that add to to the revenue. And while the per unit profit margin is far greater on lets say a lens vs a song on itunes, how many songs are bought vs 24-70 2.8L lenses???? the pro dslr camera industry is so different than the camera industry that this isn't even an apples to oranges debate, its more like apples to 30 year aged single malt scotch!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> Just a quick reminder on how companies price goods today.
> 
> There are pricing strategy consultants that do a lot of research on how to price such goods. I know of one such company that employs over 500ppl who do nothing else. Believe me, when I tell you that the rational for Nikon and Canon to price their products like they are priced takes exactly into account how much they can sell, how much discount they will give in the future after 6months, 1 year 2 years etc ... and how the competition will respond. Now don't get me wrong all I want to say is that the pricing even if ppl here don't like it follows a strategy that is probably planed to much greater detail than what you might think...
> So the 3500 USD against 3000 USD is exactly where both companies see their chances.
> ...



While all of that is certainly true, price is also based on the cost to manufacture, cost of advertising, and other intangibles plus a markup. The marketing people confirm that there is a market and set a target price that will sell. If the two are not compatible, there will be no product, since it must make a profit. Canon has said in the past that they spend a huge amount of time trying to design a camera that can be made to a price point established by marketing,

I do believe that there are two different things happening. 

Nikon is trying a strategy of getting cameras into the hands of consumers who will buy their very profitable lenses. The D800 reuses many internal parts from the D700, so the R&D cost is less, which helps.

Canon has either a more expensive design to produce, or, more likely, just sees that the market will accept the higher price. In that case, slow sales will quickly cause a hefty price drop.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 3, 2012)

Radiating said:


> I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars and exchange rate. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked so I see no reason for the complaints about price. On top of that if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut steeply and probably in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.



And yet the 5D2 cost less than the 5D and the 50D less than the 20D. And even the D800 costs less than the D700. The 5D3 costs more than the 5D2. Which doesn't belong?


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Agreed not to mention the dynamic range improvements.


Dynamic range improvements? You must have missed many 5DMkIII tests! 



Radiating said:


> Canon released a Nikon D3S with nearly twice the megapixels for nearly half the money. It's really an astonishing camera.


This is an apples to orange comparison. The 1DX is the equivalent of D3S (and D4) ...
Feel free to compare 5DmkIII with D800 though...


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars and exchange rate. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked so I see no reason for the complaints about price. On top of that if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut steeply and probably in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.
> ...



Hardly think the D800 is an upgrade to a D700


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 20, 2012)

tron said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed not to mention the dynamic range improvements.
> ...



You're about 4 months late to this argument.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 20, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue. If history is any indication the price will be cut in half over the next few years too



Newsflash -- you're wrong.

Nothing in your financial/economic mumbo jumbo changes the fact that $3500 USD is too much for what they're calling a 5D3. It's overpriced that way for two market segments:

1. Businesses who can write off the expenditure, even though most of them seem to agree it's too expensive. They can bite that nasty bullet for the business benefits it can provide.

2. Pent-up demand, the folks lusting for years for something better than the 5D2 or a crop body or whatever they used while patiently waiting for the 5D2 successor.

When those segments are satisfied (and Canon pockets the extra cash) the price will reduce, probably closer to the $3K area. Then the rest of us will buy one thinking what a great deal we're getting.

As for your prediction that it will sell for $1750 USD in a few years, I think the time machine you used needs serious adjustment. No new 5D3 will ever retail at that price, I don't care what kind of mumbo jumbo you use to delude yourself.

And by way of disclaimer, my saying the 5D3 is not worth the price is not saying it isn't a great camera. It's just not THAT great!


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 21, 2012)

I'll buy the 5D3 when it's price is around 2K, and my 5D2 is dead.

IE: After the 5D4 is out, and people are complaining about it's price, and how it isn't worth the upgrade...


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I'll buy the 5D3 when it's price is around 2K, and my 5D2 is dead.
> 
> IE: After the 5D4 is out, and people are complaining about it's price, and how it isn't worth the upgrade...


 ;D


----------



## johle (Jul 21, 2012)

Radiating said:


> I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. Lets just look at the numbers:
> 
> Canon 5D Mark II intro price: 300,000 Yen
> Canon 5D Mark III intro price: 270,000 Yen
> ...



Unfortunately, people tend to compare prices over time without adjusting for inflation.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2012)

Wow, a old thread comes to life.
The Mods really need to lock old threads.


----------



## squarebox (Jul 21, 2012)

johle said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. Lets just look at the numbers:
> ...



That is adjusted for inflation... In Japan their inflation rate is something like -0.5% compared to the U.S.'s 2%.


----------

