How much do you think the 1Ds III is over priced?

[Benjamin]

I think if I can buy a brand new 1V-HS for $2000 and a 5D Mark II for $2700, how come the current 1Ds Mark III is sold at $7000??


The 1Ds III = 1V-HS + 5D II, but $7000 does not = $2000 + $2700!


The 1D III is sold at $3850. It has the same peocessing speed as the 1Ds III, and literally everything the same but a smaller sensor. I don't see why a sensor would cost as much as $3150.


To add a 5D II camera to the 1D III's price does not even go as high as $7000...


I think Canon should bring the price of the 1Ds III down to somewhere around $5000, it still remains to be the most expensive camera in Canon's lineup (still matches its position) but that price will just make a whole lot more sense. Plus, the D3x is at the same spot as the 1Ds III now, Canon is not along anymore in this categery. For $7000, I also don't see how I should have a 1Ds III but not a 1D III + 5D II + Rebel XSi for the same price -- that way I have 3 cameras! 1D III for speed and abuse, 5D II for IQ and XSi for my back up or any application that requires 1.6x...


If the current 1Ds III remains selling at $7000, what's its replacement in the future going to be sold for? $9000?? that will just be ridiculous. The 1D series will remain to be half priced that way, and if the 1D III's replacement is FF, I'll take it easily over the 1Ds IV (or whatever that's going to be called). Just like I'll take the current D3 over D3x easily if I'm in Nikon.


Am I serious wrong again?...[*-)]


Ben

[Oren]

No, you are not wrong. I agree with what you've said - but Canon obviously doesn't [:P]

[Benjamin]

I agree with what you've said - but Canon obviously doesn't [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Canon must has figured out that to sell the 1Ds III at $7000 will bring them more $ than at $5000. Maybe pople will not pay $5000 for it either if they don't need such a camera, but for those who do need a camera like that, they will pay regardless the cost -- that's the only logic that I can think of aside of other marketing reasons. The same thing with Nikon D3x IMO. But... does it make the 1Ds III more appealing to the current 1D III users if the price is somewhere around $5000? If I'm a 1D user I will upgrade for certain!

[Daniel Browning]

I think Canon should bring the price of the 1D III down to somewhere around $5000

It would be nice for photographers. But Canon does not exist to build tools for photographers; they exist to build money for investors.

If the current 1Ds III remains selling at $7000, what's its replacement in the future going to be sold for? $9000??

That's a good guess. And if it has the right features, it will continue selling, even at $9K.

that will just be ridiculous.

Not really. They just want to squeeze the last dollar they can out of every photographer they can, like most megacorporations.

How much do you think the 1Ds III is over priced?

If the 1Ds had the same margins as the 5D2, I would estimate that it would cost about $4000.

I think if I can buy a brand new 1V-HS for $2000 and a 5D Mark II for $2700, how come the current 1Ds Mark III is sold at $7000??

There are several possible reasons.

1. Because they can. On that product line the Canon execs must believe that they make more money with a high margin instead of a high volume.

2. Because they need another $10 million yacht. If the sales projections are met, Mr. exec gets another yatch for his collection. How can you even think of denying him such a basic necessity?

3. Because the rush of power. After you get your fourth or fifth yacht it gets a little boring. But being able to look your customer in the eye, overcharge him with super high margins, then sit back and laugh? That's the bonus that keeps on giving.

21 MP FF Sensor, $900.
Die-cast magnesium alloy body, $700.
High end electronics, $300.
Crushing the hopes of photographers everywhere? Priceless.
There's some things money can't buy, for everything else, there's cronyism.

Something is obviously terribly wrong at Nikon, because they have the same autofocus in their $1700 camera as their $4000 camera. And the same sensor in the D700 as the D3. At first I thought that this marked the beginning of the end. That from here on, Nikon was going to do everything in their power to make the best tools at the lowest cost.

But then they came out with the D3X and I breathed a sigh of relief.

[Keith B]

I love this kind of discussion.


(IMO)


Some time ago people actually had to have money in there pocket to buy things, so things were priced based on materials, labor, R&amp;D and some profit to keep the company running. They had to be reasonable so people would justify buying them. Because a bank would not let you take out a mortgage on a lens or camera. But then the 80s came along with the credit card explosion. Then suddenly marketing departments had a new task at hand...figure out how far the "sheep" would go into debt for our crap.


Credit cards have kind of ruined everything. People don't really care what they pay as long as they don't have to pay for it now. Does anyone really believe a lens is really worth $7000 dollars? I mean even on the "LOWER" side, a 24mm for $1700?


Don't like the prices blame Visa, MC and AM EX.

[Keith B]

Oh


Heck yeah, I think it's over priced.

[peety3]

The 1Ds III = 1V-HS + 5D II, but $7000 does not = $2000 + $2700!

1Ds3 is more than 1VHS and 5D2. There are two Digic chips (admittedly former generation, Digic 3), and the associated motherboards and design costs to manage dual-processor operations. There are more menu options, translating into more design costs and potentially more manufacturing details.

The 1D III is sold at $3850. It has the same peocessing speed as the 1Ds III, and literally everything the same but a smaller sensor. I don't see why a sensor would cost as much as $3150.

1Ds3 has a larger mirror, larger pentaprism (you can tell them apart from the front by looking at the crown of the viewfinder), etc. It has less than half of the RAW buffer capability than the 1D3, so presumably it's working pretty hard to get to where it's at. The 1D3 actually has a second mirror motor to drive the mirror back down; supposedly it was the only way to get the 10fps and mirror blackout times to where they wanted them. I assume that the 1Ds3 has the same dual-motor arrangement, but honestly don't know.

I think Canon should bring the price of the 1Ds III down to somewhere around $5000

Lens Rentals has a 1Ds3 for sale, used, at $4800. Hasn't sold in about a week. That may be a sign of dropping values. It's also a sign that I'm showing serious restraint, as I know exactly how I'd pay for it but still have been a "good boy" by not jumping on it. I do check daily to see if it's still there...a guy can dream.


For what it's worth, my girlfriend and I had a gig last weekend and a gig this weekend. We rented a 5D and a 50D to "round out" our 1D3, 40D, and Rebel XTi. On Friday, I was shooting solo, so I went with the 5D, the 1D3, and the 50D. I've quickly realized that the 1D models really are that much better than anything else. I've never touched a 1V-HS, so I can't compare to that, but otherwise I know what works for me and what is on the radar for future rentals and purchases.

[Bill M.]

I think Daniel hits it right on the head with his post. Canon really doesn't care about the average photographer when they come up with the pricing for a camera like the 1DsIII. They price it that way because they want it to be an elite camera and they know they can sell it for that much. The economy and the recently released 5DII I'm sure has affected sales, but their target audience for the 1DsIII isn't the average photo enthusiast anyway.


I was reading on a Canon rumor site (which I always take with a grain of salt) that one of the possible reasons why a replacement for the 1DIII hasn't come out yet is because newspaper/news agencies who will typically buy up to 20-30 bodies at a time, just don't have the budgets to do that. The 1 D series is definately geared to pro shooters who normally will pay those prices to get the tools they need for their jobs (which in turn, can be written off partially in taxes anyway...)


Me personally, I would rather have a 1DIII, 5DII, and XSi than a 1DsIII.

[Benjamin]

It will remain to be interesting to see what Canon will do with their forthcoming 1D III replacement. If the replacement comes @ D3's price with FF (as mostly expected) and a slight increase in resolution over the 1D III's 10MP, I don't imagine any practical people will still spend extra $3000 for a 1Ds camera. My only resistance of buying a current 1D III camera is that it's not a FF. To me 10MP resolution will work just fine, I even prefer larger sensor with relatively low pixel count as it will benefit the IQ and high ISO performance (Nikon's approach); but to go from 1.3x cropped to FF makes a whole lot difference!


I'm sure that I'll be one of the very first 1D IV buyers (if 16MP FF @ 10fps comes true); but I will not be a 1Ds buyer, not even in the foreseeable future as I don't want to spend extra money for no reason...


The same thing with the Nikon D3x, how they would manage to sell it knowing that the D3 is an identically capable camera at half price??

[Colin]

I would rather have a 1DIII, 5DII, and XSi than a 1DsIII.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I think you hit it pretty much on the head with that.


Between a 1Diii and a 5Dii, you've got your performance parameters covered. The 1D series is a practical performance workhorse for going out into the world, particularly with fast-moving subjects and harsh conditions. If you're in a studio, or doing landscape pictures (which typically require reasonably good weather if you're trying to actually get high resolution pictures) a 5Dii would give you most everything you need.


I'm not saying I wouldn't want a 1Ds, but to buy one, and you wanted to justify it, you'd have to be doing a lot of business with it in particular applications that might justify the cost, but there aren't many, I think. The first, it would seem, is to have the best full frame camera Canon offers, regardless of price, which is officially 'professional'. Unfortunately, because the 5Dii is considered a consumer camera.


There is a market which is willing to pay a lot for a little bit more. You might be able to get better value, and the same or near functionality by other means, but that's not what that market is looking for.


The other issue is perceived value. If Canon didn't have a really expensive model, a lot of people might assume that they don't go as 'high-end' as some other companies. Plus, they probably want to (and can)sell more 5Dii's. Next to a $7K camera with the same image quality, a 5Dii seems pretty reasonable in price. I still can't buy one, but I would if I could.