Why is the 5D M3's price dropping so fast?

Normally, it would take years for a price drop of 550 to occur. So far it has been exactly a year. Does anybody have any clues to what this is about? The M2's price dropped years after it was introduced in 2008, but that took about 4 years. I notice that some sites have an additional price drop of what Canon reduced it (for the month of March only). This makes me wonder if the Camera is not selling, or is it that a newer model will arrive sooner than later (normally when I see this amount of price drop, it indicates this), Any ideas?

Selling like hotcakes?

But Canon can make a killing by not lowering the price, that would in term please Canon's shareholders. It makes no sense but I do not have any proof to what is going on with the price scheme here. I do know the Original 5D dropped sharply prior to the Mark 2 announcement, but the price did not move that much for over 5 years. This time it is 15% discount in 1 year. The Canon 5d M2 when supplanted by the 3 took a 15% discount in four years.

ppmax wrote in post #15708762
Selling like hotcakes?

Selling like hotcakes would RAISE the price, or keep it the same. Supply and demand, my friend. Perhaps selling like used bubble-gum would be a better suggestion. If they anticipated X units per month and are only selling X/n, they would drop the price to up the sales traffic.

BTW, Canon still lists it for $3499. It hasn't moved a penny, yet.

I would surmise a price drop would be to attract people away from Nikon.

If you watch bhphoto videos on youtube, you might have heard from a few pros that they have switched to Nikon, yes D800 crazy magapixel count can be a lifesaver for pros.

Its still cheaper than the 5D Mk III. It often sells as low as 2500. While it can be argued that 5D MKIII is better in some aspects its certainly not $1,000 better.

Just my two cents before I get flamed

I have said it several times but where are the ears to listen?!

Canon when introduced Original 5D or Mk II knew what superior technology they have in hand.
On the other hand, 5D Mk III is an old technology body with only a new skin. Nothing is innovative her unlike preceding siblings. Canon probably will replace it a lot sooner than anyone else thinks. Even 6D is far superior in terms of features, leave along that Dark side competitor (Yes Niki D800). Unless Canon can beat D800, the new 5D has nothing to say...
For those who do not believe me, listen to phrase "History will repeat itself". I am personally a victim of 30D and know exactly what I say. Sorry Canon I love everything you make but can't close my eyes to the reality.

6D will have the same fate, it just doesn't stack up to D600

dochollidayda wrote in post #15708928
If you watch bhphoto videos on youtube, you might have heard from a few pros that they have switched to Nikon, yes D800 crazy magapixel count can be a lifesaver for pros.

Its still cheaper than the 5D Mk III. It often sells as low as 2500. While it can be argued that 5D MKIII is better in some aspects its certainly not $1,000 better.

Just my two cents before I get flamed

So,I could upgrade to Nikon and get a better body for $1,000 less. How does that cover the $7,000 or $8,000 worth of glass I would have to buy to actually USE the Nikon body. I am a hobbyist, not a money tree. The Canon with all its foibles, is still at least $6,000 cheaper, for me anyway. Jumping the fence would be prohibitively expensive.

Damn, and here I thought I was going to get burnt.

I agree with the above two posts, those who don't agree are perhaps too biased. We all know what the newer Nikon bodies can do, hey even Sony is upping their game and all Canon has is 5D MKIII with years old tech and an adv focus system.

Hey the toned 6D down on purpose, add the nipple and 7D focus system to it and I'd buy that over the 5D3 in a heartbeat.

5DMKII was around 2500, i think 5DMKIII should very well be the same price at this time, if not lower.

TSchrief wrote in post #15708993
So,I could upgrade to Nikon and get a better body for $1,000 less. How does that cover the $7,000 or $8,000 worth of glass I would have to buy to actually USE the Nikon body. I am a hobbyist, not a money tree. The Canon with all its foibles, is still at least $6,000 cheaper, for me anyway. Jumping the fence would be prohibitively expensive.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. Not every hobbyist has 6,000 dollar worth of glass, I know plenty of friends who bought a D800 with a kit lens thinking they are getting the best camera, which it probably is at this time. Couple of years later they will get another camera with kit lens, let it be Canon, Sony or Nikon at the time.

Secondly, if your glass is $8,000 worth you can easily sell it for 10-20% loss maybe. So its really not as much as you think it is.

Not to get flamed or come off as a Nikon fan boy but even the old argument that Canon glass is cheaper which was used a lot a few years ago is no longer valid. Between Canon's recent price hike on their lenses and the new Nikon bodies, switching to Nikon is a valid option for a lot of people and is not really that complicated or expensive. Unless you are heavily (and I mean heavily, not 3-4 lenses) invested in canon or have lenses that Nikon simply doesn't offer , switching these days can be done with minimal loss of time and money.

Then again, I am in love with the 5DmkIII and don't see any reason to switch so...

Its not comparing one brand to others.
Simple answer to initial question of this thread is that Canon 5D III is a lot of less camera than Every other preceding 5D so far has been, at the time of introduction.
Its absolute value that is in question.
I am only Comparing 5D to 5D.
Probably Canon went too fast in sending III out so they had to compromise on features.
III is only a face lift of II and will not last long.
Inventory on shelf needs to go so that the real replacement can show up soon.
There is a very good reason for price drop...
May be some even do not believe (Or can not understand) that price is dropped!!!!

dochollidayda wrote in post #15708928
If you watch bhphoto videos on youtube, you might have heard from a few pros that they have switched to Nikon, yes D800 crazy magapixel count can be a lifesaver for pros.

Its still cheaper than the 5D Mk III. It often sells as low as 2500. While it can be argued that 5D MKIII is better in some aspects its certainly not $1,000 better.

Just my two cents before I get flamed

while this may be true, the 5D3 is still pretty expensive, even on the used market. The 5D3 is not a direct competitor with the D800 IMO. The feature set is just too different. I like the d800, but no way in hell do I want to deal with those file sizes... even the smallest raws.

james.bond wrote in post #15708739
Does anybody have any clues to what this is about?

The 5DIII was overpriced at introduction - hence the quick initial price drop.
Any additional price drops from now on, though, will be gradual, following the normal lifecycle depreciation.

I don't think the 5DIII will be replaced before the fall of 2014 ... but I've been wrong before.