I think working pro photographers will be hit hardest by this. Enthusiasts buying multiple lenses at >$2K each are less likely to be affected by inflationary pressures from the basic necessities.
Upvote
0
Canon Appears To Plan 10% RF Lens Price Hike in Japan
- Thread starter tiggy@mac.com
- Start date
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
I wish Canon the best of luck as a company but it takes some serious arrogance to continue jacking up prices and recycling lenses they’re charging $20K for. Especially when you’ve got a competitor like Nikon making the products they are and pricing them much lower. I understand Nikon’s strategy and that it might be short term, but in this market, I’m now looking at a Z9 and their incoming lenses for my next purchase. I’ve invested $30K into the RF mount thus far but I can comfortably say my future budget is on hold with Canon if this continues. May not be a huge loss to them but I’m certain others are feeling it and getting tired of the creep. Creep with pricing, creep with recycling lenses, creep with apertures. Too many great options out there right now.
Upvote
0
Raising hand.
I am an enthusiast.
BUT - - - -between
* RF lenses being released at stupid high prices
* RF lenses not being available
* RF lenses then getting a price hike - - -then suddenly being available at major retailers 2 days later
I think I am out.
I was good with $1000-$2000 L glass. . . buying one every year or so.
Then in the mid 2010's. . . we started seeing perfectly fine "L" lenses being replaced every two years . . .at higher and higher prices. I was fine with that. I was happy with the 16-35-mk 1. At the end - - -I was considering a 100-400 mkII to replace a 100-400 MK1. . . . But RF comes along and . . . the entire collection was obsolete? And the 100-400-MK1 at $1800 was replaced by an RF at $2700? And it's out of stock for a year?
Tell me again how this is better than an iPhone? (J/K - - -I know the difference. I will just keep using my EF system. The toy money is now going to drones)
Upvote
0
The EF 100-400mm was introduced at the end of 1998. The Mk II was 16 years later in 2014, much improved, and is still current for EF cameras. That’s hardly a good example to quote of a lens being replaced every two years. And you can buy a RF 100-400mm for 700 £€$.
Upvote
0
Sorry, but that’s asinine. With a simple adapter, EF lenses function as well on mirrorless bodies as well as they do on DSLRs (there are 8 exceptions – 7 MkI IS supertele lenses lose the functionality of the AF stop button, and the 30 year old 35-80 PZ doesn’t power zoom).
I have 10 EF-mount lenses and they all work great on my R3. Using adapted EF lenses enhances functionality in some cases, e.g. the drop-in filter behind my 11-24 and TS-E 17. It’s great to get 30 fps for birds in flight with my 600/4 II – can’t do that with a DSLR.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
I know of three who are licking their chops to jump on the new PFs from Nikon, as well. Those recycled RF superteles and their prices really lit a fire under some of the Canon wildlife shooters I talk with. “Same old Canon. They’ll never change.” I think some, myself included, were hoping a little humility would come from the Sony mirrorless competition. Appears they’re back to business as usual now that they’ve got a reasonable lineup built.
Upvote
0
As usual, everyone’s friends are switching away from Canon. Yet somehow…
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
Not interested in the “brand wars” personally. I used my anecdote as an example of others in my immediate circle who are getting frustrated with the pricing and trajectory Canon is on presently, as am I. Regardless of you sharing who’s on top right now, that’s real and happening.
Upvote
0
I think it's interesting that the third party lens makers haven't found a way to undercut Canon and Nikon (and now, with a couple lenses, Sony) on the super-telephotos. I've owned a few copies of Sigma's 500mm f/4, and it's nice for the money, but was a little less sharp than Canon's 500 f/4, and - what killed it for me - didn't take teleconverters nearly as well.
I shot primarily Sony for one year, eventually acquiring their 600 f/4, which is the close equivalent of the EF 600 III/RF 600.
I would have thought that we'd see a $8000 600mm f/4 from Tamron or Sigma eventually, but that didn't happen. Perhaps my gut impression that there must be a lot of profit margin in a $13k lens is incorrect.
As to the discussion above about Canon hurting itself with pricing, I do think that there is a segment of people not so much leaving Canon because of lens prices, but that there are people who *would* come to Canon but are factoring lens prices when deciding. Canon may well decide these are precisely the lower-margin customers they can do without.
But Canon is stating explicitly that it wants to become #1 in mirrorless worldwide. That perhaps suggests they'll do what they did with the EF range, and split it into high-end and low-end ranges, with a profusion of new "cheap and cheerful" bodies and lenses.*
-tig
*Somebody, inevitably, is going to take this as meaning the M mount will come back. No. Stop. You have your whole life ahead of you. It's just a mount.
I shot primarily Sony for one year, eventually acquiring their 600 f/4, which is the close equivalent of the EF 600 III/RF 600.
I would have thought that we'd see a $8000 600mm f/4 from Tamron or Sigma eventually, but that didn't happen. Perhaps my gut impression that there must be a lot of profit margin in a $13k lens is incorrect.
As to the discussion above about Canon hurting itself with pricing, I do think that there is a segment of people not so much leaving Canon because of lens prices, but that there are people who *would* come to Canon but are factoring lens prices when deciding. Canon may well decide these are precisely the lower-margin customers they can do without.
But Canon is stating explicitly that it wants to become #1 in mirrorless worldwide. That perhaps suggests they'll do what they did with the EF range, and split it into high-end and low-end ranges, with a profusion of new "cheap and cheerful" bodies and lenses.*
-tig
*Somebody, inevitably, is going to take this as meaning the M mount will come back. No. Stop. You have your whole life ahead of you. It's just a mount.
Upvote
0
somehow people have a distorted view on "popularity". even if you just measure internet traffic, canon is miles ahead of sony. look at the web traffic stats for canonrumors.com versus sonyalpharumors.com and it's not even close. canonrumors.com is ranked at #26,924 whereas sonyalpharumors.com is ranked at 60,699 (using https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo). this matches up with the google stats as well.
Upvote
0
I wasn’t aware it had left. It’s so ‘gone’ that M-series bodies have topped the domestic (for Canon) top-seller list for months.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
Well this is ironic isn’t it? You’re saying that I have a distorted view of “popularity” and you’re comparing the website traffic of two rumor sites as evidence that Canon is somehow superior? One site could be trash and the other might be great at SEO—what’s your point? Those stats aren’t indicative of anything other than one rumor site doing better than another. Next you’re going to tell me that Canon’s the best because Peter McKinnon is cool and has millions of followers and chooses them.
Regardless, you’re the one making this a popularity contest—again, I simply used an example with a leading competitor who is undercutting with pricing right now. I could care less which one is most popular.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Really not looking forward at buying more Canon gear. Was in the process of switching to RF system but there is really no point.
The prices are absurd as they are already.
It's funny how when I started out photography as a kid 35 years ago, just before the EOS system was released, I eventually saved enough money to buy two EOS 1's film cameras. I was still an avid amateur then when they were released. Still, I could save enough from an average salary to buy the gear.
Today I'm a full time professional photographer and there is no way I can afford any of pro series cameras. The 5D series is the best I can afford on my income.
The prices are absurd as they are already.
It's funny how when I started out photography as a kid 35 years ago, just before the EOS system was released, I eventually saved enough money to buy two EOS 1's film cameras. I was still an avid amateur then when they were released. Still, I could save enough from an average salary to buy the gear.
Today I'm a full time professional photographer and there is no way I can afford any of pro series cameras. The 5D series is the best I can afford on my income.
Upvote
0
Thinking inflation only influences prices where the inflation occurs is just plain wrong. Nearly everything produced in Japan is done by importing nearly everything from somewhere else. Inflation is the reason. By definition, Canon's price hikes are inflation demonstrated in stark reality. However, camera and lens sales are not counted in the formula for figuring a country's inflation. With low parts availability it makes sense (supply and demand) that Canon is probably paying premium for those parts. In my town, and the towns surrounding mine, there are zero new cars on any of the lots. Chip shortage. We were in a head-on collision December 28th. Progressive gave me $4,000 over blue book for my high mileage Hyundai. I was in total shock. I did not have gap insurance. I still owed $6,300 and was worried they wouldn't pay it all. I took that $4k and bought a used, beat-up, POS Ford F-150 (circa 1992) with 280,000 miles on it. The price? $3,850. Yup. Shortages and inflation. I've since put $1,500 in that truck to make it more reliable. 2 years ago that same truck would have been $1k at best.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Companies ALWAYS charge the price they think the customer is ready to pay, regardless of the real value of their product.
Just think of a car's metallic paint, whose cost is about $50 more than standard paint.Take a look at the Porsche price list
.
Sometimes, they overcharge, and then engage the reverse gear.
But this very rarely happens, because customers quickly get used to higher prices, after a short period of whining. Unfortunately...
Just think of a car's metallic paint, whose cost is about $50 more than standard paint.Take a look at the Porsche price list
.Sometimes, they overcharge, and then engage the reverse gear.
But this very rarely happens, because customers quickly get used to higher prices, after a short period of whining. Unfortunately...
Upvote
0
Someone who thinks they are smarter about pricing than the experts with all the information might end up poor, and throwing “rich” around as an epithet.
buzz off
Upvote
0
Similar threads
