Is Canon trying to get more money out of me ?

As far as i know, every business out there is trying to get money out of you. The good news is that they give you new and improved toys in exchange for your money. The bad news is that they use a good chunk of that money to research and manufacture even better toys to get even more money out of you

You don't have to get the new toys (i like my cameras cheap and outdated because they lose value way too fast) and you have to keep in mind that overall, photo gear is no more of an investment then your car is (they're not, unless you at least cover their cost by using them - for professional photographers they can be gorgeous assets/investments, easily covering their price).

So as long as you keep your liabilities low cost (buying SH) or you're a pro, you shouldn't expect to lose any less money then you did when you bought your brand new LED TV or smart phone. For example,since I'm not a pro, i paid for my SH 5D+35L+85L2 just 3700euro. And I should recuperate a reasonable part of that money, even if i were to sell them 5 years from now. However, were I to buy them new at the time they were released, i would have paid around 6500euro, losing a huge chunk of that money even today.

Yay MadWeasel, that is good info I might have overlooked. As I wrote I just glanced at dpreviews comparison of the 100mm macro USM against the new 100mm macro L and actually if I read the comparison charts correctly the resolution is the same and the latter has a slighter WORSE RB CA at the periphery of the lens. I get the sealing concept for the L specimen and what their marketing says about the new IS concept (even though I'd wanna see that working with my eyes at the small distances typical of macro). So what I was clumsily trying to say is that I feel like Canon is throwing in irrelevant new mktg hullabaloo to come out with Mk2, 3 and 4s of lenses, causing older lenses to lose some value for inessential qualities.
Sandpiper what you write about the lenses market dynamics is very interesting.
Phreeky you are correct. Maybe I just got unnecessarily worried.
To all other friends which might have perceived my post as an anti-corporate, anti-progress rant, please excuse me but I might have written things in a poor way. I was only talking very specifically about optical quality of lenses vs other lens gimmick and I am employed since 1986 by a large american three lettered computer maker and deal with research, development, marketing and sales since then, so believe me I know the system and yes nobody buys camera gear as a financial investement "per se" but even in my trade we always have to guarantee the best possible "protection of investement" versus the disruption that sometimes is forcefully brought about by progress (did any of you had some grief when their AF lenses became obsolete ?).
Thanks to all for the interesting conversation.
Bob

It's just like a motor car.
With better technology and features, car companies release new models fairly regularly.
If they didn't we'd all still be driving around in "T" Model Fords.

Why isn't a 1986 corolla worth $12,000 today? darn auto companies are out to get us. =]

Canon could have technically boosted sales by keeping the price of the 70-200 2.8 mk2 under $2000 but that would only serve to hurt the resale value of the 70-200 2.8 IS even more. Canon market researchers have considered this and will have conducted numerous polls to determine pricing for it's products.

rjalex wrote in post #10848083
I am not an "compulsive upgrader" earning my money is hard enough for me to be very thoughful before spending it

I didn't hear you mention how pleased you are with the performance of your equipment that you purchased.
What I hear is that you're more concerned about the 'value' of your equipment, as a 'commodity' on the the open market.

rjalex wrote in post #10848083
In my opinion knowing my gear very well is an order of magnitude more important to getting good photos that constantly switching to new technology that I need to master.

What technology is there to master with lenses? Faster apertures, better AF motors, and IS?
Higher usable ISO's, better light metering in camera's?

rjalex wrote in post #10848083
This is the same reason for which a lot of us are happy with old spouses rather than switching for the latest sex symbol

You don't sound to pleased with what you ended up 'marrying'...

rjalex wrote in post #10848083
I work for a large american multinational company and know the game well.

What game?
That a company is advancing their technology, and attempting to stay ahead of the competition, by offering products that offer better performance?

There's nothing preventing anyone from sticking to a Polaroid and a Commodore 64.

rjalex wrote in post #10848083
I was just wondering if I am interpreting well this latest "trend" in the optics being upgraded in their "electronics" (stabilization, AF motors etc.) rather than the sheer optical/build qualities.

I don't think so.

Whatever aids in the getting a better picture, and a higher ratio of good pictures, makes a lens a better 'performer'.
Same with cameras.

Oh, and buy the way, (pun intended), you are not Canon's 'target' demographic. So the answer to your OP, is 'no'.

.

Not sure the new lenses will de value your current ones, the 70-200Lis mk1 is now discontinued but im sure the none L macro is still going strong.Just go and enjoy them.

OK as this thread is morphing into an unpleasant one with someone going as far as questioning the wisdom of my marriage (which I found rude and irrelevant) I am bailing out. Thanks to the posters that stuck to facts rather than bestowing their superior knowledge about market economics. Sigh.

Ten years ago I sold all of my Canon gear. I was not using it and I also had medium format gear I liked better.

In that gear was a 300mm f/4, a 200mm f/2.8. At that time I sold those lenses for less than what they are going for now. There are newer version of those lenses but it did not effect the value of those.

Now that I have hindsight I should have bought more lenses and put less in the stock market.

I have a 24-105L and a 100-400L. PLEASE, Canon, upgrade these lenses as soon as possible. I don't relish spending additonal money BUT:

My 24-105 vignetting drives me nuts. What beautiful photos it takes and great versatility but it needs improving. Also, another stop or two in capability of the IS would be great! (if forced, I would accept either a wider wide end or a longer long end - but don't sacrifice either end to do it, 24-105 is wonderful)

The 100-400L needs to be twist instead of push-pull, improved in IS, maybe even a little additional resolution. Make it a few ounces lighter and just a little smaller (might require a little magic, yes). OR, keep the size and weight and make it an F4L for just a couple hundred dollars more. Now THAT would be GREAT!

But please, Canon fans, don't ask the company to stop improving their products! That's just nuts!

Companies may be putting some product "upgrades" to the market without any real improvements, just to get new business for a supposedly newer/better model.

However, I think most of Canon's new offerings are actual changes. And it makes perfect sense for them to concentrate their design money on electronics - which are evolving at a breakneck pace - vs glass which realy isn't changing all that much over the years. Glass is glass, there's no major breakthrough in technology there. I can't see how they can improve a good high quality lens optically without making it markedly more expensive - unless they somehow drastically change the manufacturing process allowing them to make better glass for less (and for all we know they and every other manufacturer are constantly working on this). Electronics though is a - relatively - new field with great possibilities. Just look at what IS can do now. So, change is good, and if they don't keep constantly updating their line up, Nikon will eat them for lunch.

I don't see that as investment. It's like a car - the value of a brand new car drops the moment you close the door; so what ? You're not buying it as an investment, you're buying it as a tool. Same with computers, electronics, etc. As long as you're happy with the results, that's all that matters.

rjalex wrote in post #10849785
OK as this thread is morphing into an unpleasant one with someone going as far as questioning the wisdom of my marriage (which I found rude and irrelevant) I am bailing out. Thanks to the posters that stuck to facts rather than bestowing their superior knowledge about market economics. Sigh.

umm...No.
The word 'marrying' was in inverted commas.
Have read of the post again.
The poster was referring to your 'marriage' to your equipment not your significant other.

philwillmedia wrote in post #10850795
umm...No.
The word 'marrying' was in inverted commas.
Have read of the post again.
The poster was referring to your 'marriage' to your equipment not your significant other.

Subtle plays on words are not going to work with someone using a second (or third?) language.

rjalex wrote in post #10847846
Have been with a digital Canon only for a few years now (IIRC from 2006) so I as asking the more experienced Canonians if the company strategy is changing trying to squeeze more money from people like me.

I usually keep my equipment for a long time, usually until it dies (for my 40D that was a pretty short life :mad.

I have a small lineup of lenses and I am very happy since I do use them ALL very regularly so I feel I spent my limited budget wisely.

Now Canon came out with improved versions of the SAME lenses.

My 70-200 IS 2.8 has been "superseded" by a Mk2 and my beloved 100mm macro by an L version with a new "axial" stabilization thing.

This brought down the resale value of my lenses and triggered some frankly inessential thoughts about "upgrading".

Is this now possible for Canon because there is so much electronics in the lenses that making progresses with them is easier than when the only features in a lens where its optical properties and build quality ?

Is this their strategy to try getting people upgrading not only the bodies but also the lenses generating more revenue ?

Personally with my limited funds I will not upgrade but I do am displeased about my lenses dropping value should I ever need to sell them.

Have a good day.
B.

There is no doubt that technology is moving faster today. This affects camera bodies and lenses, just as it does computers, TV's and smartphones. ANY high-tech electronic product can be technically obsolete tomorrow. I don't look upon my photography equipment as an "investment", but as a hobby. Yes, it can be costly, but that's the entry price to most all hobbies. Canon is no different than any other tech product manufacturer. "New" seems to always be better and more expensive. A "trap by a mean old corporation"? One ALWAYS can just walk away!

Had I wanted a cheaper hobby than photography, I would have started collecting gold bars and diamonds!