Do you feel that Canon "price gouged" early 5D III buyers?

I'm not looking for a debate, there are no "correct" answers when you ask how people feel.

I'm just curious what people's feelings are now that 5D III prices seemed to have adjusted down to the market.

Do you feel that Canon knew that $3495 was above market, but figured that initially early adopters would purchase as many as they could make, so they could get an extra $500-$700 out of them?

Do you feel that in the long run, the temporary extra revenue from the higher price will offset the long term loss of sales due to people switching brands?
If you purchased one at $3495, do you have any ill feelings towards Canon?
For those who switched to Nikon, would you still have switched if the 5D III started out under $3000?

To me, there's always a premium for early adoption, and that goes beyond cameras. While I have held out for a price drop, I would have had no ill feelings toward Canon had I purchased the mkiii at the initial price. I would assume that most people who watch these things understand that prices will naturally fall over time. Those that want it as soon as it's announced will nearly always pay a premium.

cm71td said:

cm71td wrote:

I'm not looking for a debate, there are no "correct" answers when you ask how people feel.

I'm just curious what people's feelings are now that 5D III prices seemed to have adjusted down to the market.

Do you feel that Canon knew that $3495 was above market, but figured that initially early adopters would purchase as many as they could make, so they could get an extra $500-$700 out of them?

Do you feel that in the long run, the temporary extra revenue from the higher price will offset the long term loss of sales due to people switching brands?
If you purchased one at $3495, do you have any ill feelings towards Canon?

Click to expand...

For those who switched to Nikon, would you still have switched if the 5D III started out under $3000?
You know the saying 'Buyer be ware'. It is very common business practice for Canon and other technology manufactures to initially set their prices high and to lower them. By doing this, they get the top dollar for those willing to pay while their manufacturing capabilities and supply’s are being ramped up. Once they get the volume going, they can let the marketplace and competition dictate their pricing.

Those that needed the camera were willing to ante up, and those of us that do not need it at that price can afford to wait. Some buyers at the initial prices probably do feel let down by Canon, but it’s their own fault if they do IMOHO because this is not the first time it has happened.

cm71td said:

cm71td wrote:

I'm not looking for a debate, there are no "correct" answers when you ask how people feel.

I'm just curious what people's feelings are now that 5D III prices seemed to have adjusted down to the market.

Do you feel that Canon knew that $3495 was above market, but figured that initially early adopters would purchase as many as they could make, so they could get an extra $500-$700 out of them?

Do you feel that in the long run, the temporary extra revenue from the higher price will offset the long term loss of sales due to people switching brands?
If you purchased one at $3495, do you have any ill feelings towards Canon?

Click to expand...

For those who switched to Nikon, would you still have switched if the 5D III started out under $3000?
Market is driven supply and demand, not emotions. If people are buying, it is not "above market". Once people stop buying, the price goes down. "Ill feelings"? I guess, you've never bought a new car.

cm71td said:

cm71td wrote:
Do you feel that Canon knew that $3495 was above market, but figured that initially early adopters would purchase as many as they could make, so they could get an extra $500-$700 out of them?

Click to expand...

No. They just genuinely misjudged the market (as confirmed by their quarterly financial results).


In 2008, the 5DII was priced very competitively and spec'd with a class leading resolution.

Overall, it offered very good value for money, so buyers went nuts and the 5DII could not be found is stock for more than a year.

But Canon obviously thought that that they were leaving money on the table with the 5DII, so they priced the 5DIII accordingly.

What has changed since 2008 is a) competition and b) market expectations.
Canon did misjudge these and the end result is that the 5DIII has much poorer value proposition compared to the 5DII.

No wonder the 5DIII needs to be discounted just six months after introduction.
And the price will only keep falling.

Canon gouges earlier purchasers of most of the camera products they put out. I was gouged when I was one of the first purchasers of the Xsi, but I knew it at the time, and considered part of the cost of having a new product.

The cycle is as follows:

1) Camera comes out, price the highest. When newbies as whether they should purchase now, many will say, wait for the price to come down.

2) The camera now in mid-cycle of its product life is now cheaper. When newbies ask whether they should purchase now, they are told to wait as the price will drop even lower when new model set to release.

3) The new model is just a month or two away from release and the price is the lowest with the current model as a stand alone. When newbies ask whether they should buy the camera now, they are told to wait, this model will be obsolete with the new model having better features.

So the good news is, no matter when you purchase, its the wrong time.

Every Canon body that I can remember has dropped in street price by a substantial amount in the UK, some faster (7D) than others (5DII). The £3,000 price point for the 5DIII held up for several months, but currently the keenest price on Uk stock is just under £2,400, and under £2,050 for grey imports through apparently reliable outlets. Early adopters should have worked out by now that they are going to pay for the privilege. It's their choice to do so.

... pays more than those who buy later.

Does that come as a surprise to you?

Have you met anybody who were forced or threatened to buy early?

No?

So where is the problem?

Regards,
Mike

+1 we all know price will come down.

x-vision said:

x-vision wrote:

No. They just genuinely misjudged the market (as confirmed by their quarterly financial results).


In 2008, the 5DII was priced very competitively and spec'd with a class leading resolution.

Overall, it offered very good value for money, so buyers went nuts and the 5DII could not be found is stock for more than a year.

But Canon obviously thought that that they were leaving money on the table with the 5DII, so they priced the 5DIII accordingly.

What has changed since 2008 is a) competition and b) market expectations.
Canon did misjudge these and the end result is that the 5DIII has much poorer value proposition compared to the 5DII.

No wonder the 5DIII needs to be discounted just six months after introduction.
And the price will only keep falling.

Click to expand...

It's not true that the 5DII "could not be found in stock for more than a year" as I bought one from Amazon just a few months after it was announced.

The 5DIII wasn't priced higher because Canon thought they were "leaving money on the table" with the 5DII, but rather because it was a substantially upgraded camera. Despite bearing the old "5D" name, the 5DIII represents a new blend of the 5D series and the 1D series, with a number of features borrowed from the 1D series.

The 5DIII was priced 30% higher than the 5DII at launch ($3,500 vs. $2,700), and easily provided 30% more value. Many professional buyers recognized the value immediately. Some photographers who had previously needed the 1D series for their work and paid $4,500 for a 1DIII or $7,000 for a 1DsIII, for example, could now meet their needs with the 5DIII at $3,500 and thus save money. They were getting much of the 1D series (autofocus, shutter and mirror response, dual cards, 100% viewfinder, etc.) but in a 5D-sized body. The high demand for the 5DIII, even at $3,500, is why the price has held up this long.

A price drop over time is common and foreseeable in the camera world. It is a legitimate way to charge more to those who need a product more. Early buyers are often those who have a pressing business need for the product and for whom the product is actually worth more. For them, the extra paid to get the product early is quickly outweighed by the benefit of actually having the product in regular usage earlier.

cm71td said:

cm71td wrote:

I'm not looking for a debate, there are no "correct" answers when you ask how people feel.

I'm just curious what people's feelings are now that 5D III prices seemed to have adjusted down to the market.

Do you feel that Canon knew that $3495 was above market, but figured that initially early adopters would purchase as many as they could make, so they could get an extra $500-$700 out of them?

Do you feel that in the long run, the temporary extra revenue from the higher price will offset the long term loss of sales due to people switching brands?
If you purchased one at $3495, do you have any ill feelings towards Canon?

Click to expand...

For those who switched to Nikon, would you still have switched if the 5D III started out under $3000?
I do feel that they were above market, but I'm not sure they did. Remember, the rumored price of the Nikon D800 was $4000, so they probably thought they were safely under that. I bought the original 5D at $3300, so a couple hundred over that isn't a big deal for a superior camera. Of course, that's easy for me to say now, because of my earlier experience with the price drop of the 5D, I waited on the sidelines for the inevitable 5D3 price drop... ;-)

The higher price, or the revenue from that probably did offset any people who jumped ship, but that was probably evened out by the one who jumped from Nikon to Canon. If the posts on the Nikon forum were as indicative as those on the Canon forum, there was as much frustration with the specs of the D800 as there was the price and spec of the 5D3.

I can't answer that question directly, only to say that I didn't bear Canon any ill will with the original 5D, so I probably wouldn't now, either.

Look at what Sigma did LOL. The SD-1 had a $9700 USD original list price and soon after dropped to $1500.

While I think the 5DM3 is $1200-1500 overpriced, if people are willing to pay $3500 for it, Canon would be silly not to let them. Can't really knock them for that. Apple does the same thing, and people will pay what they ask all day long.

Anyways, all that really matters is what the market will support. Obviously the consumer wants it as cheap as possible, but if they can sell every one of them at $1000 or whatever more, then they will.

I don't have bad feelings when I bought the 5DMIII since I came from the 10D getting back into photography. If I had the 5DMII at the time of the 5DMIII release I would have waited longer to order the 5DMIII and wait for a price drop.

The one thing I won't do again is pre-order any Canon product. The one thing that bothers me more is the constant delays in product shipment after the announcement. I pre-ordered the 5DMIII and waited after several delays and pre-ordered the 24-70Lii and you know the story there.

Going forward from here I will wait until a new product is in stock and possibly even wait for a price drop or rebate of some sort before I order.

I bought early and paid full freight.

That's how retail business works.

Want to be an early adaptor? Put on your big boy pants and pull out your card.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. If something seems too expensive don't buy it.

No, I don't feel gouged. For the amount of camera you were getting, and compared to what else was available, I thought (and still think) it was a pretty reasonable price.

However, now that the D800, and especially D600 are out, Canon will probably have to lower their prices a bit.

I'm still glad I bought it when it first came out. I'd rather have the several months with the 5D3 than my $400 or so.

Jeff Palmucci said:

Jeff Palmucci wrote:

No, I don't feel gouged. For the amount of camera you were getting, and compared to what else was available, I thought (and still think) it was a pretty reasonable price.

However, now that the D800, and especially D600 are out, Canon will probably have to lower their prices a bit.

I'm still glad I bought it when it first came out. I'd rather have the several months with the 5D3 than my $400 or so.

Click to expand...

Its obvious that the price drop were due to fallen sales figures and to stay competitive. Other companies are offering much more for less. Why do you think they announced a new firmware press released with more features. I think Canon has finally started to see that they can't keep milking brand loyalty.

shaunly said:

shaunly wrote:

shaunly said:

Jeff Palmucci wrote:

No, I don't feel gouged. For the amount of camera you were getting, and compared to what else was available, I thought (and still think) it was a pretty reasonable price.

However, now that the D800, and especially D600 are out, Canon will probably have to lower their prices a bit.

I'm still glad I bought it when it first came out. I'd rather have the several months with the 5D3 than my $400 or so.

Click to expand...

Its obvious that the price drop were due to fallen sales figures and to stay competitive. Other companies are offering much more for less. Why do you think they announced a new firmware press released with more features. I think Canon has finally started to see that they can't keep milking brand loyalty.

Click to expand...

Wait ... price drops over time are extremely common in the camera business and in many other businesses. Countless cameras, lenses, flashes and other gadgets — from numerous brands, those with and without brand loyalty — go through similar price adjustments. And firmware updates are also very common in the camera business. You take these two points as evidence that "Canon has finally started to see that they can't keep milking brand loyalty"? That presupposes an unjustified assumption, and then draws an unjustified conclusion.

This has happened with nearly every Canon I've bought. Usually they become available in the spring, and price drops occur in the fall.

But for me the summer is the busy season. In the case of the 5D3 it gave me 30k frames with a superb camera before the price drop. Worth it? For me yes.

If you want to save money, buy an older model or wait a while. Canon may make more profit on early sales, but no one's arm is being twisted.

Cheers,

Colin

I think the term gouge is misused more than it's used properly. Gouging is overpricing a necessity in short supply because of some shock to the supply system, like a natural disaster. New cameras are not necessities.

New users are getting soaked, though. It's smart business for a company to sell their products at the highest price someone is willing to pay. For cars, this is typically done through high-pressure salesmen who can individually price cars and for airlines its done through very sophisticated pricing algorithms. In technology, it's typically done by offering first-access to those willing to pay more and then slowly reducing prices to entice those unwilling to pay more. The advantage of this is that they can typically capture slightly more profit at the beginning of the introduction. There are numerous possible disadvantages, however: it can antagonize those unaware of the practice who expect a consistent price; it can delay purchases for those who are aware of the practice and have come to expect a fast discount; it can shift consumers away from their product if the premium is too high or the discount comes too late.

It's good there are early adopters, but I'm sure glad I'm not one of them. In addition to often paying more, they also get to deal with any problems or deficiencies that either get fixed or allow late adopters to avoid the problem altogether.