There's been a lot of discussion about the price of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs. the Canon EOS 5D Mark II – and there's an $800 difference between the launch prices (remember the Canon EOS 5D Mark II was launched at $2699 and the Canon EOS 5D Mark III is $3499). Quite frankly a lot of people have been complaining that there just are not enough new features to justify the price difference. But what if it has nothing to do with features but in fact has much to do with the economies of Japan vs. USA? Not to mention the natural disasters in Japan and the flooding in Thailand?
I've seen several discussions about the economics and this post by Michael James on HDRibloa.com sums it up perfectly:
Canon and Nikon had to raise prices
More from James:
I’ve been saying for years now here and on Twitter that Canon and Nikon have been forced to raise prices simply due to currency exchanges. I’ll give you a small example. In 2007 a lens I bought for $1400 now sells for $1900. Did it get better? No. But the exchange rate changed. So Nikon had to raise the prices in order to still maintain the same profit margin.
It sucks… but here were are in the biggest recession of our lifetimes and Nikon and Canon are forced to stiffen or raise prices so they can maintain a profit. It’s a double whammy for USA folks. Lower wages, less jobs…. and higher prices.
What amazes me is that the photographers solution is to try and stay competitive by LOWERING prices for their services. I don’t get it. I’ve been raising rates by 5-10% annually for 7 years now and yes I lose some clients that are cheap, but most stick with the quality.
the 24-70 II
(cover photo credit: snap from michael's article)