...and same goes for D3/D3x.
So, we all know that the 1Ds III has a sensor very similar to the 5D2's. Yet it costs like 3000 euros more than the 1D3. And the 5D2 costs less.
This is the very obvious and easy proof that 1Ds can't be so more expensive than 1D only due to the sensor. Yet they have the same body, controls etc. The conclusion is that the price difference is a pure 100% marketing strategy.
Of course. I have always maintained that full frame sensors are not THAT expensive to make that a camera has to be priced near $10K if it contained a full frame sensor. The 5D was the first camera that proved that. It was introduced at $3,300. At about the same time, the Nikon D2X, with a 1.5x crop 12mp CMOS sensor, cost $5K. It is indeed all marketing.
And consider also that both cameras are targeted to the same "category" (pros) even if in different sectors.
Speaking of which, the 1DS/D3x cannot be considered as the "top" cameras, it just depends on the sector: a sport photographer would rather chose the (1)D3 which have better performance, even if (I guess) it had the same price .
So my question is: what is this marketing strategy?
Charge the maximum the market will bear. If you can get away with it, of course.
Is a landscape/studio photographer supposed to have bigger business volume than a sport photographer?
Of course not. Sales for the D3X is slow. The same is probably true of the 1DSMKIII. Most professionals who would have bought the 1DSMKIII have bought 5DMKII cameras instead.
Just wondering
Luc
Wonder no more. Price rarely has anything to do with cost. An Acura costs about twice as much as a Honda, but the Acura does not cost twice as much to make. The same is true of small cars and big cars. It costs about the same to make an econobox as it does to make an SUV, but consumers are much more willing to pay big money for a big car than a small car. Therefore car makers have largely abandoned making econoboxes.
If and when full frame prices finally reflect thet true cost of making them, then there would be little profit in making APS-C models, and the market will therefore move to full frame entirely. However, that does not appear likely in the near future, as most camera makers have resisted starting a price war on full frame bodies, although Sony's decision to sell a 24mp full frame body for $3K did represent a tentative first shot in a mini-price war, which probably destroyed the market for $8K full frame bodies. There may never be another new 35mm DSLR, full frame or not, which can be sold for $8k from now on.
......... Ooooops!!!
