FBoneOne: The angry comments below are quite puzzling. Leica has not been able to keep up with demand lately. Regardless of whether any if us think these cameras are worth what they charge, why wouldn't they charge $8000 for it? They still have not found the price point that curves down demand. Actually, if we look at the recent history, Leica M cameras tend to react like true luxury items with increased demand as price goes up.I actually love Leica Ms and would own one if I could, but I understand their decisions - they may not help me, but they seem right when it comes to maximizing Leica's profits, which is after all what they should be thinking about. Nobody has to buy a Leica, so their pricing strategy does not hurt anybody, and it sure seems to be helping them, so again, we may not like it but I don't see much to criticize.
The problem with your analysis is that the numbers are quite small. It's no different from reading about an ultra-exotic car where, despite a handful being made, they can't seem to keep up with the demand.
Just another Canon shooter: Did Chevy shrink so much in size to require a 600mm lens?
The car was so far away, it was the size of a lemon.
ThatCamFan: Please stop EFFING up already Nikon, Canon is does PROPER quality control tests apparently, not Nikon. I am saving up for a Nikon but you are REALLY making me question my choice.
Its got a computer inside. Early adopter + computer = problems. That's just the way it is. Banding, orbs, light leaks at 100,000 ISO. People talk about how trouble-free film cameras were but they were much simpler, mechanical devices. And they weren't trouble-free. Just easier to fix. Except Bronicas.
mpgxsvcd: I find it interesting that everyone keeps saying “Look at the Market Share Nikon has” instead of “Look at the profits Nikon is not making”. Having a big market share is a good thing only if that market has growth potential and is already profitable. Having more of a non-profitable market is actually a bad thing.
Tell that to Sony.
Not normally a fan of Nikon as a company (products are great; company isn't) but I think they're doing pretty well here, admitting instead of denying and doing so right away. Unfortunate for all concerned but if you want to be an early adopter you take your chances.
mpgxsvcd: The single biggest thing to remember here is that Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus all depend on revenue from something other than Digital Cameras to keep their businesses going. Canon and Nikon are Camera companies first and foremost.
Slumping camera sales will hurt Nikon and Canon way more than it would for Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. If Nikon and Canon stopped selling DSLRs and compact cameras tomorrow those companies wouldn’t be around for long.
Cameras like this are the best bet at continuing to sell cameras to the mass market. Canon and Nikon have abandoned this market almost entirely.
Olympus is in poor shape all around and would have been gone altogether without medical. Cameras are substantial for Canon but they make lots of other things as well. Sony is no longer making money from electronics at all (see NY Times) so it is a mystery why they want to break into a small but crowded field like cameras. A very long-term plan, perhaps. Panasonic is fine without cameras; Fuji and Nikon are the companies that really depend on photo products. Innovation is great but some of the coolest products are not big sellers, like Ricoh for example.
Michael Ma: 99000 pounds. Sounds about right.
Too heavy for me!
Zerg2905: Everything that Sony does is innovative and exceptional. With the Nikon label on it, it would have been a "pass" for this model. With the Canon label on it, oh, epic fail, the Toyota of the camera industry strikes again. Etc.
It's a paradox. Sony keeps trying new things but what little interest remains in buying yet another high-end digital camera every year goes mostly to Nikon and Canon. Based on the number of posts you'd think Sonys were wildly popular and had no competition, but you have to admire them for trying to break into a declining market.
At this price, I wonder if Canon wouldn't make one for you.
I tend to think of everything Microsoft does as a hyper-lapse but this does look interesting.
Get a Gitzo, a good ball head and an Arca or RRS release. Costs a lot, but they last a lifetime and unlike cameras, don't become obsolete after a couple years.
bigdaddave: I lived a couple of miles away and the original crossing went years ago, it's now in a different place..
Why on earth choose 45 years as an anniversary? Wouldn't 50 have been far far more sensible, if not then why not 37 or 42 years?
Everyone here knows the story.
For the money, it's great. And typical of Canon, I pre-ordered and received the lens 2 weeks before the announced release date.
Reminds me of the discussion of monkeys in A Fish Called Wanda but that was funnier.
Typical, late summer "news" and with Photokina around the corner. A lot of people with enough money to buy another camera or lens are on vacation.
Let them try UPS or OffTrac. That should put things in perspective.
Artpt: You know my crazy uncle Roy always says that after taking some Metamucil, every other day.
So I'm taking this with a grain of salt...
Badda bing! I'm sure this guess is as close as most of the others.
brycesteiner: It's only a matter of time....
Kodak should reinvent itself, though I think it's too late.
Kodak built a business around consumables. Buy a roll of film, get it processed, buy another roll of film. And within this endless loop there were many opportunities to sell other very profitable products.
Now, supposing Kodak made a top quality digital camera. They'd have to price it close to cost to compete with all the other companies (who aren't doing well with cameras, themselves). The payoff? They might sell you a memory card before you disappeared forever. No more film, no processing, no enlargements, no duplicate prints, no photo albums, no slides, no slide projectors, no darkroom, no flashbulbs, no batteries. All this was inevitable. They did try for inkjet business with cheap ink. This sounds smart but ink is where the profit is, unfortunately.
DigiMatt: I know not to expect much from the DPR crowd but really these comments are full of ignorance. Most of you have confused camera negative film with distribution print films. These are two TOTALLY different things for different purposes and demonstrate the folly of DPR readers who comment about things of which they know nothing.
The deal today was to help keep camera negative film in production. This is the film that is actually used in the movie cameras. There are no issues with light fluctuation or bad quality with camera film. What you all have complained about was worn out or misused/abused film print distributions. This is no longer an issue as the vast majority of movies are shown digitally, whether they were shot on film or digital cameras.
This sounds like a discussion of rem-jet backing, of which I readily admit I know nothing. But the comments about saving Kodak sound as if people think there is still a lot to save. Much of what photographers associate with Kodak is already gone, including the employees.