Why can't the average guy on the street

[Bruce Pelley]

get more than about 10-11% off MSRP on the A1? (Assuming full retail is around $3,800)

It seems to me there's almost sort of price collusion/agreement between sellers.No one will go any lower period,especially if it's a reputable establishment.It's being milked for what it possibly can be even though its been for months.

If Canon gave them 30% off list,that means they gross as much as $750 profit on each unit they move.

That's plenty for us small guys who can't write it off as a business expense and its cost represents having to use substantial personal savings which were generated at a sacrifice in order to buy one.

Just my 2 cents,
Bruce

[Even Solberg]

Looking at it from the other side: Why SHOULD they discount more if they don't have to?

[Mats Frendahl]

Prob. they sell so well they don't have to bother about discount, and it's pretty "cheap". If you were to buy a Sony F350 or similar they'd be more eager to have the deal and accept better discount. I don't think Canon have 30% discount to shops, but I don't know for sure. Canon seem to have set the almost same price all over the world for the A1. 4000 USD in US, 4300 USD in Sweden, 4000 USD in Germany - this is not without Canon-controll for sure.

Sony FX7 2900 USD in US, 3900 USD in Sweden, 3300 USD in Germany - for comparison.

If you look at a real "odd" Canon products that is NOT sold in large qts. - the "Telephoto EF 400mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens" you find:

6500 USD in US
7500 USD in DE
8500 USD in SE

I think you will find the same for camcorders as prices raise and the price awareness is stronger from the buyer.

If you look at BH for the F350 you will find "Email me a better price" - they DO want that deal of 25k... I think it costs some 29k in UK.

Supply and demand - as usual.

[Eric Weiss]

the a1 is easily worth double of its retail price.

[Mats Frendahl]

It depends on if you can make money on using it or not. Then your argument might be valid. You can always buy the G1 if you think you paid to little for the technology ;)

Bruce seems to be a non-professional users, hence price is of concern. I'm sure you'd think the MB S-class is an expensive car, but not if you have a limo-service. It's all about ROI. But the "I" might not be valid in Bruce's case, only for many of us here on the forum. And, naturally, Canon don't address the "casual tourist" with this camera.

[Eric Weiss]

actually the blue book on my car is about 1/2 of the price of the A1.

pro or not, in terms of quality and control alone, the next comparable camera range is over $10K. for "better" quality one will have to spend over $30K.

rich or poor, price should always be a concern... however, canon did the indie broadcast and film making world a tremendous benefit by releasing such a cam for under $5K.

further, the cost of the a1 is pretty marginal compared to the other hardware concerns that are required in order to migrate over to HD (without ripping off your own face.)

frankly, i don’t know why someone who isn't pro, aspiring pro, or just hemorrhaging with expendable cash would purchase such a camera.

[Mats Frendahl]

"blue book" - don't know what that is - prob. some US term.

>pro or not, in terms of quality and control alone, the next comparable camera range is over $10K. for "better" quality one will have to spend over $30K.

I think - right or wrong - units in that range do have other qualities than image quality - like being able to perform 24/7 from the north to the south pole in all conditions. For some pros that is important.

>rich or poor, price should always be a concern... however, canon did the indie broadcast and film making world a tremendous benefit by releasing such a cam for under $5K.

I agree.

> further, the cost of the a1 is pretty marginal compared to the other hardware concerns that are required in order to migrate over to HD (without ripping off your own face.)

Sure, if you go all the way with high pro Vinten etc. You can easily equip the A1 to 10x it's cost I guess. Neither will improve quality if the operator is not up to par with the equip. A complete Avid system runs prob. at 150k or so and then the A1 is a marginal cost, if any. I'm not sure an Avid pro user would use the A1, perhaps.

> frankly, i don’t know why someone who isn't pro, aspiring pro, or just hemorrhaging with expendable cash would purchase such a camera.

Well, you don't have to be an Indy Car driver to enjoy a Porsche (or Lexus or...)? ;) Most Porsche drivers never go above 100 mph...

[Bill Pryor]

The list price was $4,000 when the camera came on the market. Now the price is $3500. How can you complain about that? Every time I use any of the 1/3" chip professional HDV cameras available today I am amazed at the quality for the price. I don't know how they can sell them that cheap. It gives you the exact same quality as the XL H1 (minus some of the features), which is close to $8,000.

If the camera isn't a business expense for you and seems high, there are cheapear HDV cameras, such as the Sony A1U and the Canon HV20, as well as a JVC model or two. The XH A1 is already cheaper than the Sony Z1, and even the Sony FX1, the JVC HD110, the Sony V1, and the XL H1 and XH G1.

We used to have professional video cameras and then consumer cameras. There really wasn't anything in between. Then when Sony introduced the VX1000 around 10 or 12 years ago, things changed. The VX1000, by the way, sold for over $5,000 and by today's standards looks pretty crappy.

So after the VX1000 DV revolution, we suddenly had a whole flock of "prosumer" cameras. That gave us three layers--consumer, "prosumer," and professional. (I'm not getting into the really high end Hollywood stuff here--that's a whole different category.)

Now, when lower priced HD came along in the form of Sony's Z1, Panasonic's HVX200 and now the JVC and Canon 1/3" chip offerings, that middle group is even more blurred. In my mind, the only thing that differentiated a "professional" camera from a "prosumer" camera, all other things being equal, was the lens because those pesky electronic lenses on the DV "prosumer" cameras didn't allow you to follow focus.

Now that's changed--even with electronic lenses we now get distance readouts in the viewfinder. I can zoom in to something 22 feet away, focus, then move back to my closer point and shift to that focus, and when I make the move I can shift focus to 22 feet, just like with a "real" lens. That was the only remaining hurdle to go from "prosumer" to professional.

My long-winded point here is that all the 1/3" chip HDV cameras (well, not the ones without XLRs) are now fully professional, in my opinion. So, in your quest for lower prices, you have moved from "prosumer" and consumer to professional...and 3500 bucks for a professional camera is so low as to be almost laughable to people who make their living shooting video. It's too expensive for most amateurs and for home movies, but that's not what professional cameras are designed for.

[Stephen Sobel]

Originally Posted by Eric Weiss

...further, the cost of the a1 is pretty marginal compared to the other hardware concerns that are required in order to migrate over to HD (without ripping off your own face.)...

I'm considering the A1. I currently have the Canon GL2. I have an Intel Core 2 machine with the E6700 processor, 2GB of RAM, and a couple of Hard Drives. I use Vegas for video editing. What else will I need if I switch to HD?

[Mats Frendahl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Sobel

I'm considering the A1. I currently have the Canon GL2. I have an Intel Core 2 machine with the E6700 processor, 2GB of RAM, and a couple of Hard Drives. I use Vegas for video editing. What else will I need if I switch to HD?

You might value a good production monitor for preview.

[Mats Frendahl]

Bill, I think the A1 is priced correctly. ROI is very quick for any pro. "Amateurs" will never get any ROI, other than the satisfaction of high quality.

In Sweden it is graded "semi-pro". I don't know what would remove the "semi" - perhaps durability and reliability in all situations. But for the rest of us non-National Geographics et al. shooters it's as good at it can get, IMHO.

[Eric Weiss]

Stephen, I'm currently in the demographic of "ripping off my own face" when it comes to HDV. I shoot and monitor in HDV but I cap via an HV20 in DV.
My work is always delivered in SD and I'm actully waiting on upgrading my system. I too use a PC with Vegas. You should be OK with your current setup using Cineform, but it's going to be slower than what you are used to with DV on that system.

I'm looking at building a quad core ( vegas can use it)
with HDMI, 3 G's of mem, asus board, firewire 800 with 3 TB's of external on raid 0, at least 1 TB internal mixed on raptors. samsung and seagate storage.
prices always fall after xmas so i'll wait until Q1-08 and see. i have some hd projects in the works, i'm just putting them off as long as i can.

regardless of the delivery, the a1 is an awesome cam for hd or sd and light years ahead of the gl2. you will be pleased.

[Chris Hurd]

There are only two ways to categorize a camcorder: either you're using it in order to make money, in which case it's a business expense; or you're not using it to make money, in which case it is nothing more or less than a luxury item. Either way, I don't see how anyone can honestly complain about its price. No matter which HD camcorder we're talking about from any of the major manufacturers, it's never been more affordable to shoot HD than it is right now.

The Canon XH A1 is in fact priced correctly... in fact, even at full retail it's still an excellent value. Thanks all,