My primary camera is a Canon 5D MKII. At this point in time, I believe that the only significant difference between the 5D MKII and the far more expensive 1Ds MKIII is the robustness and weather sealing of the body as well as the accuracy/speed of the camera's autofocus mechanism. As one who mostly does landscape and macro work, the autofocus is not an issue for me as I tend to focus manually (using Live View with 10x mag) most of the time. Because of this I decided that, for my use, the price differential is simply far too great to merit ever again purchasing a 1 series camera for my use (assuming that the differences remain similar). Of course, I can only speak for myself. These differences may be significant enough to others that are traveling in far harsher conditions than I do or are doing people/action/event photography to merit the extra expense.
What exactly is the price differential? Currently the 5D MKII comes in at $2499 while the 1Ds MKIII costs $6114 (pricing from B&H). While the 5D MKII was a few hundred dollars more expensive earlier in it's life cycle, the 1Ds MKIII had been, as I recall, $7999 early on (and, I believe, at the $6999 level even when the 5D MKII became available).
I have always wondered about this price differential. Back when I was shooting film, I had worked my way up to a Canon 1V, which was their 'flagship film model', and the one on which the digital 1 series is based. A brand new 1V can still be had for $1650 (though I can't imagine that they sell many).
This is where, in my mind, the pricing issue comes in....and I would be glad to have someone more knowledgeable about the diffrences between cameras correct me if I am wrong here. My sense is that if you took the 'innards', which is to say the sensor and processor, of the 5D MKII and put it into the 1V body you would essentially have a 1Ds MKIII. Let's first assume that the sensor and electronics of the 5D MKII cost $2500 and the body has absolutely no value. Put that $2500 worth of electronic equipment into the $1650 body and you have a total of $4150. Since, in fact, the 5d MKII body does have some cost, if we were to get a rebate for not using it the price of a 1Ds MKIII should be significantly less than $4150, even if you add back in some cost for the development of a more advanced autofocus system.
Am I missing something here? Is my logic out of whack? I am quite happy with my 5D MKII, though I still wonder, more out of curiosity than anything else, how Canon justifies the cost of up to $6000 t0 $8000 for its flagship digital 1 series cameras? Obviously, Canon can charge whatever it wants to without worrying about me, and presumably the next 1 series iteration will have features and options not available on the 5D MKII, but still.......
Mar 11, 2010
Thoughts On Canon 1 Series Pricing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Supply and Demand. Canon know that they can get top dollar for a new 1 series body at launch. Then the prices gradually drops.
For example, here in the UK, the MkIV was released at £4500 street price. A few months later and its currently at £3700-4000 depending where you shop. I would guess that, by the end of the year, it will have come down to around £3000 and stop there.
As a comparison the 1DMkIII eventually ended up at about £2500. Not that much more expensive than a 5DMkII.
Now, I'm looking to buy two bodies soon and will probably pay £3500 for them even though I know they will eventually be available cheaper. They are simply the best camera for me right now, and that is what they cost. Hence Canon gets away with that price.
Doesn't mean I like it though!
I don't think you are missing anything big at least. I own the 1Ds2, 1Ds3, 5D2 and even the 5D1. The camera that gives the smoothest photos of these four are the 5D mark 1. The reason being the that it has the largest pixels of these four. The camera that gives the best video is of course the 5D2 because the other ones does not shoot video. The camera I like to "work" with the best, be it landscape, portraits, artistic or action photography is the 1Ds3. It simply feels better. But I guess that had I never owned any of the the 1Ds or 1D, with their bigger sturdier bodies and the larger array of focus points and so on, I guess the 5D2 would be almost just a good a tool for me as the 1Ds3 is today.
"Any" hammer can be used to hit a normal nail into a normal wall. But there are differences. Some depend on personal taste, some on how much money you can or want to spend, and some of course on functionality/durability/quality.
But when it comes to money, if you cut that expensive cup of coffee on your way to work, and the best lunch, and the every day sweets, it slowly but surely amounts up to the difference between a 5D2 and a 1Ds3 for example.
Post a Comment