[henryp]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Wow... B&H really sleazed it up this time.

We did not. As http://www.canonpricewatch.com/price...february-2011/ and Helen's remarkably comprehensive blog entry clearly point out B&H and other authorized Canon USA retailers are bound by our agreements with Canon USA and held hostage to their recent price increases and strictly enforced MAP regulations. We didn't sleaze it up. We're not in the habit of sleazing it up. We haven't sleazed it up and don't plan to sleaze it up in the future. Ain't no sleazin' 'round here.

[The1]

Originally Posted by henryp

We did not. As http://www.canonpricewatch.com/price...february-2011/ and Helen's remarkably comprehensive blog entry clearly point out B&H and other authorized Canon USA retailers are bound by our agreements with Canon USA and held hostage to their recent price increases and strictly enforced MAP regulations. We didn't sleaze it up. We're not in the habit of sleazing it up. We haven't sleazed it up and don't plan to sleaze it up in the future. Ain't no sleazin' 'round here.

it's hard to please when you're a sleaze....


sorry, just seemed like a rhyme was needed here....

[FStop7]

A wild Adorama and B&H appear!

What you are both describing sounds like price fixing and would be considered a federal crime under the Sherman Antitrust Act... I'm surprised the government hasn't taken interest considering the amount of business that Canon does in the USA, beyond just cameras.

[dcstep]

I'm of two minds about these increases. On the one hand, I like that my 24-105mm, my 70-200mm and my 500mm are all probably worth close to what I paid for them (maybe more in the case of the 500mm). Also, my 7D and 5D MkII haven't held their values, but they're worth more than they were a few weeks ago. OTOH, the 200-400mm f/4L Extender 1.4x that I plan to buy next winter, may end up costing more than my 500mm.

The new super-tele prices launch into a huge solar orbit. All of the sudden Nikon's prices don't seem so bad. Hmm, I haven't looked lately, did they go up also? Nikon has another problem, the super teles in their catalog seem to be made of unobtanium, such that, even at rediculous prices, you still can't buy one. Canon is still king of the super teles, but they lost a little go-to luster with the huge increases.

Dave

[Chewy734]

I agree Dave. I've been an avid Canon user for a long long time... but after seeing some of these price increases, the D700 with similar Nikon lenses are a better bang for the buck (especially with Nikon's current rebates).

Of course the D800 and D4 is around the corner, but apparently so should be the 5DMKIII.

[bosstones]

All I know is, I wish B&H was up on ebates.

[henryp]

Originally Posted by FStop7

What you are both describing sounds like price fixing and would be considered a federal crime under the Sherman Antitrust Act... I'm surprised the government hasn't taken interest considering the amount of business that Canon does in the USA, beyond just cameras.

"Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, replacing the older doctrine with the rule of reason. The decision overruled a long-standing precedent, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911)."

[vachss]

Another 5-4 abomination like the Citizens United decision brought to you by the conservative majority on the Roberts court.

Remember how Roberts said how much he revered the force of precedent during his confirmation hearings...

Originally Posted by henryp

"Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, replacing the older doctrine with the rule of reason. The decision overruled a long-standing precedent, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911)."

[dcstep]

Let's see, the Yen goes up vs. the Dollar and a Japanese manufacturer raises its prices in respone and throws in a little extra margin because there's still room under its competition's pricing. Two US retailers, that pay the same prices for the same products, raise there price by the same amount because the market demands that they be competitive. That's NOT price fixing.

Anyone that doesn't like it can always move to France.

Dave