canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: ScottyP on May 11, 2012, 09:28:39 PM

Title: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 11, 2012, 09:28:39 PM
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Terry Rogers on May 11, 2012, 09:42:13 PM
I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 11, 2012, 09:51:47 PM
I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.

Maybe, I don't know.  If so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al certainly don't point that out in their promotional materials.  Kind of the opposite, actually..... :)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on May 11, 2012, 09:52:35 PM
It more likely lowers the price, since sales of the 5D MK II were boosted by a huge amount due to the video, and more sales allows for reduced production costs (or more profit).  P&S have had video for many years. 
 
Video is here to stay, the sales of a body without video would be small indeed, because, even if you don't use it, resale would be very tough for a body that few want.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 12, 2012, 12:13:54 AM
Well, the price increases must be due to something.  The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it.  But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable.  You must pick one system and you buy into it with lenses.  Heavily.  Once you are in, it is very difficult and expensive to change trains.  Perhaps then it is the lack of robust competition. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: 7enderbender on May 12, 2012, 12:14:07 AM
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 12, 2012, 12:24:46 AM
I don't believe thus far that video is raising the cost of bodies.

I have some concern there will be an increased generalization of design.

The up coming 24 & 28mm 2.8 prime lenses with I.S. and the new silent focusing motors seem geared & aimed solely at improving video production. With these revised lenses there seems little to justify the increased price for photographers.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 12:58:40 AM
Well, the price increases must be due to something.  The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it.  But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable.

Right, and if you priced out comparable setups, Canon doesn't look so bad unless you were planning to use a $200- zoom on a $3000 body. The Nikon glass is generally more expensive. While the whiners have been whining about the latest Canon bodies, Canon has been quietly updating already first rate glass.

The exchange rate drives costs. Prices are driven by supply and demand, which is influenced but not directly related to costs. But increased costs do need to be absorbed somehow -- either through higher prices on the bodies, the glass, more sales on those, or more revenue through other channels. Otherwise it comes out of profits, but if too much comes out of profits, they become losses (e.g. Sony), and if the company lose too much, they eventually go out of business (Kodak, Pentax, etc)

I think you've got this kind of back to front -- it's not that Canon are abruptly becoming expensive, it's that Nikon are using aggressive pricing on their new bodies to increase their market share (at the expense of Canon). They are probably counting on their D800 buyers to also go out and buy (for example) their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses (which are more expensive than the Canon versions)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 01:04:34 AM

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

You could always go out and buy a Leica, then you wouldn't have to feel that you'd wasted your money on video.

Which video features of the 5DII do you find detrimental to your stills shooting ?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 12, 2012, 01:21:04 AM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: RC on May 12, 2012, 01:47:06 AM
Although I don't care about video and would rather see that technology and the cost of it applied toward still functions and technology, I'll bet adding two lines of bodies (ie 5D3 with and without video) would cost canon more to produce thus those costs being passed onto us consumers. 

Multiple production lines, some parts would be different, two sets of firmware, marketing costs, packaging, and so on would all have to be accounted for. 

I'm not a production expert and maybe im wrong, but I'm betting it is more cost effective and efficient having just one body with all features.   
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: PeterJ on May 12, 2012, 02:02:59 AM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold
Maybe, Mt Spokane makes a good point though about increased sales of the same hardware for video pushing up volumes and dropping costs. It wouldn't really surprise me if the two things largely offset each other and it ends up being pretty much zero added cost for still photographers.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 12, 2012, 02:15:59 AM
Sorry but it is hard to accept that the video capability is free.   Whether it is hardware of software or (probably) both, they market it as a selling point, so it must cost something.

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Cornershot on May 12, 2012, 02:45:05 AM
Other than adding a mic, I doubt it adds significantly to the price. You can add Magic Lantern to a 50D which will add video function to a camera that was never offered with it. Besides, many professional still photographers use the video capability because it's often requested by clients. All of the editorial photographers that I've worked with do some video as well as stills when covering news and events.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 12, 2012, 02:52:01 AM
It just goes back to the old what the market will bare. Perhaps you could reason an opposite extreme = socialist state that could produce 1 product line dirt cheap. I'm glad that's not the case here  ;).
 Then again if you reason that a company must charge as much as they possibly can for their product. Then likewise you must reason that consumers must endeavor to pay as little as possible. We must after all keep the universe in balance.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: gmrza on May 12, 2012, 02:57:51 AM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

It is probably true that video capability does add to the cost of the software running on cameras in general, however, I am sure that a lot of the code is reused across multiple systems - it would be crazy for manufacturers to code everything from the ground up for each body.  Sure there is some code that is specific to the 5D3, but I am also certain that there is more code that is common across all EOS bodies.  The same goes for the hardware components, like processors - most of the R&D cost is probably shared across Canon's entire line of cameras.

I suspect that the cost benefits of a greater target market (more scale) due to video capability are greater than the additional cost of supporting video in each body.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: PeterJ on May 12, 2012, 03:29:48 AM
Anyway I think if we all agree the the cost is something like +/- $200 at the extremes the OP Scotty used the example of a $3,500 camera possibly having $1,200 worth of video functionality. I assume he's disappointed with the price of a 5D3 and wonders if it would be a $2300 camera minus video. If it became a $3,300 option I dare say many / most peple would pay the extra 5% odd extra just in case they ever needed it and because of a likely larger resale market. But personally I'd say the 5% more would still be at the upper bounds of possibility.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 12, 2012, 04:12:48 AM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

It is probably true that video capability does add to the cost of the software running on cameras in general, however, I am sure that a lot of the code is reused across multiple systems - it would be crazy for manufacturers to code everything from the ground up for each body.  Sure there is some code that is specific to the 5D3, but I am also certain that there is more code that is common across all EOS bodies.  The same goes for the hardware components, like processors - most of the R&D cost is probably shared across Canon's entire line of cameras.

I suspect that the cost benefits of a greater target market (more scale) due to video capability are greater than the additional cost of supporting video in each body.

The real cost of the software is in the debugging and testing it - which would have to be model specific
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: once on May 12, 2012, 04:35:12 AM
Is it raising the cost of bodies? Probably, yes, to a degree.

Is it wasted for many shooters? Probably, yes, to a degree.

It seems you won't be swayed from your perspective--at least not easily...

Consider that I think this is one of many gripes that characterize the situation Canon is in. They make products to satisfy as many people as possible, but their primary market is...? I don't know, maybe they sell just as much to professionals as hobbyists?

Surely, they have done a little bit of research before deciding to spend millions of dollars on R&D for their cameras. Which is probably less than 5% of their budget, but anyway.

But then any time a new product comes out, each group has their criticisms.

So, what to do?

Anyway...I would tend to be on the other side of your argument.

Do you really think the 5D III would be $1200 less for a camera without the video features? The technology is not likely that expensive, considering that it had already largely been available in the previous version. And, you can get a T3i now for what...$600? So...historically speaking, we're talking about unprecedented value and inexpensiveness for recording HD video on a DSLR.

So I doubt the video features are much of a big deal.

Also, consider what is the most expensive part of a camera. Isn't it the sensor? (I am not sure) I highly doubt video software is enough to command 33% of the cost of a camera. We're talking about 2 megapixels, right? That's not asking much, at this point.

Anyway, it would be a nightmare at this point to separate the two. Can you imagine? I'm sure some people would be very pleased that you would have to buy an entirely separate setup just to record the 2 minutes of video you might want to (or in the case of professionals, you have to) record.

Oh wait, for those who really want to spend some more money, you can spend a whole lot more to feel like even more of a professional! You can pay as much as 20 times more for the body, and 40 times more for a lens. Lots of people are surely happy about this.  :o

But I'm glad for all these developments. Now the serious HD video is a separate R&D budget, and any technology that may trickle down will not be at more than a marginal cost added to the DSLR.

It's ironic to think...I mean this happens often, right? New product comes out, vocal minority gets upset about any number of things.

These numbers are likely off--surely they are inaccurate:
Before 5D, a full frame DSLR cost...$5000? Everyone's happy...
After 5D II it cost...$3300? Oh wait...did the price of the camera drop, or stay the same, and they added video? Unacceptable!
After 5D III it cost...$3500?
And now you can get a full frame body for $2000.

The initial price seems to have stayed the same over time, so I am sort of glad all the extra features haven't added any further cost to the bodies. But, I do not like the price of the 5D III, for the record, Canon.

Also, before 5D II, HD video would cost something like $1200 for a separate camera--if you got the point and shoot version.

It was $2500 to start, or maybe more for a "real" camera, and I have no idea how much extra lenses would have been.

Are you saying you'd want to have this? As above, you now have that.

It's funny that more than a few are suggesting that video is messing with the DSLR budget. I get it: historically, any new technology or improvement meets with dissatisfaction. But before 5D II, a lot of people would never have considered spending $2500 to get an extra body for video only.

And after 5D III, a small number of people are wishing it was like it was "back in the day."

What features do you imagine are missing from the 5D III? Do you want 14 fps, carbon fiber shutters, full carbon fiber and basalt body, in a smaller package? 71 point all cross point brain-controlled autofocus? Because although I think they could have included "a few" more features, I don't think they could have included "a lot" more features. Look to the 1D X to see what more they could include, and to the...eh, the 5D II to see how much less it could be, with less features. Though that last part would be wildly inaccurate, because it's already been out for so long.

My take: Canon put video in because a lot of people seemed to want it at the time. They also had the benefit of finding that after including it, they increased their market share by >10%, or whatever the fact may be. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think they'd like to step away from that. I certainly hope they don't!

I feel like they actually added it at marginal cost, not even knowing what would happen. This is one of those things..."Well it only costs 5%, but...more people will buy it!"

In fact, maybe that extra market share helped Canon to allow more budget for R&D--which I imagine will remain the same or go even lower for video, now that they have separate video cameras. That would explain all this stuff coming out...

Now about those new lens prices...
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: once on May 12, 2012, 04:42:04 AM
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

Also, as of this year, conventional HD in itself is no longer the standard of super serious.

And it's not that they're forcing you to buy two completely different things at the same time. It's a classic business case of, "how cheaply can we add something that will allow us to sell a lot more?" HD is a perfect case--especially in the case of the 5D.

Photographic technology both has and hasn't changed a lot since the 1980s...but I would say it's definitely gotten a lot more accessible.

HD is a good distraction, anyway. When the 1D...(XXX?) comes out and we have double the frame rate...I mean do we really need 30 fps mechanical shutters?

Where is the technology headed? Because although there have been a lot of improvements, there haven't been a lot of breakthrough new features. And I think that's because...what more is there? And, what more is there that we can do, while keeping the price the same?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: TexPhoto on May 12, 2012, 08:05:18 AM
Considering 3rd party software can be added to a 50D to shoot video with a Canon that was never designed for it, It does not seem like the software or hardware could be adding that much to the cost of the camera.

Also the video capabilities have added large numbers of sales to these DSLRs that they would have not had anyway. The 5DII then 7D were runaway hits in large part because they had video when other cameras did not.  So without it, and thus fewer sales, camera prices may have been higher.  Profits for Canon certainly would have been lower, and subsequent cameras and lenses more expensive.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: illogict on May 12, 2012, 08:28:20 AM
Once you have LiveView (and I doubt many people would want that removed, no matter how vocal they are about video), video is nothing than recording that feed. Adding a sound chip, a mic and a speaker is not much at all hardware-wise.
Software-wise, you mostly need to code that h264 encoder -- once it's done, you can just reuse that for every other product. Obviously, Canon already had that for the compacts and video cameras, thus no need to recode it. So what's missing? Some UI and polish.
Video came basically at no cost for Canon. Why bother? That's a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 08:46:45 AM
Sorry but it is hard to accept that the video capability is free.   Whether it is hardware of software or (probably) both, they market it as a selling point, so it must cost something.

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

Well, what do you mean by "free" ? It's not free to develop, but that's not the same as saying that it makes the shipped product more expensive.

You're welcome to buy a Leica if you don't want to "waste money on video". But they cost more (even though they don't "waste money" on video).

The total R&D is not free, but from that you need to subtract sunk costs (R&D already spent on prior models, or allocated to different models like dedicated video cameras) to get R&D spent. Then you have net R&D costs. But if that feature results in an increase in sales, the extra sales dollars could exceed the net R&D costs.

So in terms of cost per body, the "economy of sale" factor could actually Me_Me_Me any "advantages" of avoiding "wasting money on video". That's at least part of why Leica bodies are not cheaper than Canon (even though they don't "waste money on video")

In terms of manufacturing cost per body, the difference is tiny as has already been pointed out -- so it all boils down to impact on sales versus impact on costs. I put it to you that not only it does in fact result in lower costs per unit shipped -- but that a low cost full frame body would probably not be viable today without video.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: sanj on May 12, 2012, 09:05:12 AM
So much speculation without any solid inside knowledge.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 09:08:05 AM
The real cost of the software is in the debugging and testing it - which would have to be model specific

Similar logic applies to this too though -- you're dealing with marginal cost of debugging and testing. Once you have software that works on several platforms (or bodies), the marginal cost of adding an additional platform is quite low. By the time they've got video working on the 5DII Rebel line and their 1DC, cost of adding it to 5DIII firmware can't be too bad. It probably cost them more to have it on the 5DII, but it's not clear that this made even that body a whole lot more expensive (was the D700 cheaper ?)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 09:16:31 AM
So much speculation without any solid inside knowledge.

Well, who are you saying is doing this speculation ? Some are insisting that video raises the cost of bodies but offer absolutely no evidence in support of this position. They have insisted that video "must" add to "costs".

The counter argument to this has little to do with "inside" knowledge, but everything to do with "solid knowledge". The counter argument is that gross costs are not the same as marginal costs, which are again not the same thing as price paid by the consumer, and that it is quite plausible that an increase in gross cost does not result in a price increase for the consumer. This argument does not depend on some proprietary knowledge, it is a simple mathematical fact.

In response to this the complainers simply stamp their feet and ignore the counter to their argument (because they don't understand it perhaps ?) and insist that video "is not free". We agree that it must cost something to develop support for video, but no-one has made the case that it makes cameras more expensive. Assuming that it "must be so" really doesn't cut it.

 The empirical evidence really does not appear to be on the side of the complainers, as there appears to be next to no correlation in the market place between having video and price of the body (except perhaps that really expensive stills cameras generally DO NOT have video features)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: KeithR on May 12, 2012, 09:18:10 AM
What Illogict The Enlightener said...
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: DavidRiesenberg on May 12, 2012, 09:53:07 AM
This horse has been beaten to death many times before and it doesn't change the simple fact that hardware and software costs have almost nothing to do with the final price. What determines that is the market and what it can bear. Nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 10:04:44 AM

The real cost of the software is in the debugging and testing it - which would have to be model specific

Well, the cost of the software/debugging is likely more processor specific....but that would be the case not only for video, but for the still shot resources. Since most of the hardware 'can' support video, it is likely little added on.

And if you code correctly, in a modular manner...etc...it can more easily be ported for different processors..of which I think Canon works with mainly what, like 2x different processors?

cayenne
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on May 12, 2012, 10:42:47 AM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

Yes, but it is essentially the same for all the cameras they sell, tweaked for a particular model, so spreading a million dollars over several million bodies might add 25 cents.  The 5D MK II paid off any initial firmware development cost years ago, so we are now dealing with incremental costs that will be spread out over the next 3 years.  A million dollard sounds like a lot but the very high numbers of bodies to be sold make it a low cost per unit, and the additional sales due to video bring in far more profit, probably 1000X whatever the cost is.
 
Like many here, I don't use the video features, but I do recognize that it brings resale value to my camera, and reduces my cost due to larger production runs.
 
The cost to Canon of developing the totally new AF system used in the 1D X and 5D MK III was likely 10X any developmental costs for upgrading the video. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: zim on May 12, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
I have no problem with video on my camera even though I’ve never used it. I tend to go with the better to have it just in case than not there when I could have really used it scenario.
The only thing I’m not clear on though (and what would change my mind) is does having it compromise the design of the sensor to the detriment of stills? if not then I don’t see the problem even if it does increase the price of the camera. Is there a definitive answer to the stills quality question?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 12, 2012, 12:30:57 PM
When live view was fitted then the capability was pretty much there.

The 5D2 added a new sensor and processor to the 5D spec so it's difficult to see what cost the video feature added.

The 7D added a new a new sensor, AF system, pentaprism, wireless flash and twin image processors, and a dedicated AF processor to the 50D spec, as well as video, so it's hard to deduce what extra cost the video function indiviudually added.

The 500D added a new sensor and LCD screen to the 450D spec, so again it's hard to isolate what cost difference.

I don't use the PIC modes. Never have, never will.   I don't use spot metering.  Unlikely to.  I don't use AWB.  Not likely to.   I don't use custom profiles.  Unlikely to.

Canon don't make a camera specifically for me, but they make several that do what I want, so I put up with the redundancy.

I do use video, for my work.   And as great as it is, the video is compromised by the still sensor roots, not the other way about.  The AA filter is the wrong strength for the ultimate video resolution.  The colour sampling pulldown isn't great for video (4.2.0 where 4.2.2 is the norm, and 4.4.4 preferable) the sensor read-off is wrong (very slow version of frame transfer, rather than the preferable and switchable frame / interline transfer FIT type) causing the infamous jello shutter.

So if anything, stills considerations compromise the video capability, but then, it is a stills camera first and foremost.

That said, used with realistic expectations and sensible techniques I prefer shooting on my EOS camera for many types of job than on my 2/3" ENG camera.

Back in the day when I used an EOS 3 film camera, I loved ECF.  Some folk hated it.  I could never work out why they just didn't use it.   I would swap PIC modes AWB and spot metering for XLR inputs and a headphone out, but how popular would that be?

You will find it difficult to buy a camera without video these days, so regardless of the answers you come up with, thats how it is.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Aglet on May 12, 2012, 12:42:59 PM
Video's a feature I would not miss on my cameras and would prefer it not be there.

There's very likely some compromises made in the front end electronics to perform the high speed data acquisition required by video that may affect overall image quality for stills.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on May 12, 2012, 01:23:02 PM
Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800?  Even a rebel has so many features and options that a person coming from a p&s.  Photography isn't cheap, whether your a hobby person or aspire to make money with it, it ain't cheap - with that said though there are cheaper options.  I mean, I highly doubt that the vast majority of us here on the forum  when buying their first setup said ---not sure if i should buy (fill in blank) for $7000.  No, most of us either went from film camera to digital, or, a cheap P&S to a rebel or nikons equivalent.  From there, add a flash, a few better lenses, go shoot...go shoot...love it...go shoot, then eventually after time outgrow what we have and upgrade.

I know its getting old school on you here, but we can really break it down to ultra cheap.  If you really have no money, go build yourself a pin hole camera! ;)

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 01:58:35 PM
Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.

Yeah, that part was kind of odd. There are also older bodies with no video that are dirt cheap for those who don't need video -- a 40D is about $400, a rebel XS is about $250.

Cost of glass pretty quickly dwarfs price of the body.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 02:10:34 PM
Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on May 12, 2012, 02:17:00 PM
Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice.  Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2.  Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one.  Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii.  Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car).  Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 02:37:17 PM
Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Stephen Melvin on May 12, 2012, 03:58:42 PM
Video saved Canon's bacon, with the 5D Mk II. That camera would have sold about half as many units if it hadn't had video, and the extra funds allowed Canon to upgrade the Mk III extensively. Remember, R&D is booked as a percentage of sales, and video more than doubled sales of the Mk II. It wouldn't surprise me if it actually tripled them.

Increased sales lowers costs, so in other words, video has lowered the cost of bodies. Besides, video is pretty much "free," because Live View is an extremely useful photographic tool. Once you have Live View, all it takes is a bit of code and a 10¢ microphone to get video.

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 12, 2012, 04:30:09 PM

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

There are always costs - perhaps you mean that the costs are outweighed by increased profits from additional sales?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 04:34:26 PM
Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice.  Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2.  Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one.  Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii.  Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car).  Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL

LOL...thanks for the advice.
I've pretty much already made the decision, just need to click the buy button.
;)
I was first introduced to the Mark II last year late...while on a shoot for a short comedy...pro situation, lighting, sound people, a guy to pull focus...etc.

I saw what these things can do, and since then, have seen the amazing things pros are doing with them.
Someday maybe I can make money a little to pay for itself? Maybe. Down here in New Orleans, there is a HUGE industry with film and tv....and I've already got people saying just showing up on some of the more indie things..can get me on set and a little $$, so I can gain experience.

I want it for some cooking videos I'm already shooting just using my iPhone and iMovie to edit....I want that HD look.

I've got the cash in hand so I'm going to get the Mark III.....

I think I've researched myself to death at this point.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 04:40:41 PM
Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield .  With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 12, 2012, 04:53:30 PM
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

All I (in the OP) did was ask if it costs something and if perhaps it is wasted on some people?  I also expressed doubt that it could literally cost nothing.  I went on to indicate that I felt photography is expensive enough without having to buy video whether you want it or not. 

Nothing against video.  I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point.  If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck? 

Even if the true marginal cost of video is/were really almost negilgible, there is a percieved value, so maybe that provides a marketing opportunity.  Maybe they could avoid undercutting their other product lines with a cheaper stills-only body by using the justification/rationalization/distinction that the price is cheaper because it was stripped of video/audio capability.  Or perhaps I am over-analyzing this.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Astro on May 12, 2012, 05:38:07 PM
i don´t use video on my DSLR.
that said video is a fact and here to stay. so discussing this topic is kind of useless.

my problem is that canon seem to put more effort in video quality then in still image quality improvement.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 12, 2012, 06:13:16 PM
I mentioned the upcoming prime 24&28 I.S. 2.8

Perhaps this will be the first clear or obvious sign of video/ value impact. If the price is at the $750 range with little or no improvement for regular photographers - it could be a bad sign regarding future releases.
 :'(
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Penn Jennings on May 12, 2012, 06:15:09 PM
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

Magic Lantern is free.  How many people develop it?  If Canon needs millions to do what a couple of guys can do for free then Canon has a problem.

I'm sure that there is a cost.  However, video also drives a lot of sales.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Axilrod on May 12, 2012, 06:25:28 PM
I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

There is absolutely no evidence that shooting video affects the lifespan of a DSLR.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: rocketdesigner on May 12, 2012, 06:45:37 PM
Video saved Canon's bacon, with the 5D Mk II. That camera would have sold about half as many units if it hadn't had video, and the extra funds allowed Canon to upgrade the Mk III extensively. Remember, R&D is booked as a percentage of sales, and video more than doubled sales of the Mk II. It wouldn't surprise me if it actually tripled them.

Increased sales lowers costs, so in other words, video has lowered the cost of bodies. Besides, video is pretty much "free," because Live View is an extremely useful photographic tool. Once you have Live View, all it takes is a bit of code and a 10¢ microphone to get video.

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

+1 ... Although many will argue with you, great points, thank you.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 12, 2012, 06:56:49 PM
Well I guess I can always sell off some of my collection to keep up with the price increases Canon is demonstrating.
I had to say that to make sure I keep relevant to the discussion
 ;D

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/1923-leica-camera-fetches-2-16-million-euros-185156596.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US (http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/1923-leica-camera-fetches-2-16-million-euros-185156596.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US)

 Yikes.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: rocketdesigner on May 12, 2012, 07:05:56 PM
Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield .  With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

Would definitely advise against Final Cut X ... go with Premiere.  :)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: psolberg on May 12, 2012, 07:39:23 PM
I think video isn't raising the cost but it is definitively changing the specs of some bodies. Take for instance the 5DmkIII. 22MP in 2012 would NEVER had happen if canon didn't think all it's photographers are closet videographers and made video the first and foremost priority when it started the sensor. The 5DMKIII in a world where canon didn't care so much for video would have been a 40MP body like the D800 with first and foremost emphasis on still image quality and DR for landscape/studio/portrait photographers. However the irony is that canon's protection of it's precious C series means it holds back on it's DSLRs not even offering 4:2:2 out uncompressed. huh :o

I hope for canon that it finds its way back to the still shooter. Stills aren't going away and they remain an art that is so different from video that the moment you put too much stupid emphasis on video, you screw the still shooter.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
Nothing against video.  I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point.  If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck? 

Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.

The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 12, 2012, 09:07:21 PM
@psolberg
Quote
Take for instance the 5DmkIII. 22MP in 2012 would NEVER had happen if canon didn't think all it's photographers are closet videographers and made video the first and foremost priority when it started the sensor.

If thats true then explain why the C300 & C500 don't have this video priortised sensor you speak of?

Is pulldown from 18 or 21 MP all that different from 40MP?

Come on!

Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, canon didn't deliver a 40MP 5D3 because a) folk don't need it b) r&d would make it even more expensive and c) 35mm lenses just cannot resolve the detail.

Are you jealous that Nikon made a 36MP body for 10MP lenses?  Do you want to blame video? Oh but the Nikon has video too! 

Here's the thing.  Nikon were first with DSLR video.  With the D90.  Wasn't very good.  Canon added it into the 5D2, perhaps as an afterthought.  Wasn't very good.  Some smart guys cracked the 5D2 and made it good.  Canon launched some firmware that made it legitimately very good.

Folk got right into it and bought a DSLR purely for video.

So canon are somehow wrong to cater to folk who'll double or even triple the sales of 5D2s?   And wrong to cater for the same folks who'll flock to the 5D3?

Lets not forget, the 5D and 5D2 were pretty pedestrian in terms of speed and AF.  The 5D3 solves those problems.  What problem, exactly, does a 36Mp sensor solve?

Get a grip and get over it.  Video and stills can peacefully co-exist despite what bitter wedding photographers think.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield .  With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

Would definitely advise against Final Cut X ... go with Premiere.  :)

Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.

And well....with camera purchase....I can swing $300 for FCPX....Adobe looks to be trying to price themselves out of the market.

I"m also going to be playing with Cinelerra too http://cinelerra.org/ (http://cinelerra.org/)

I have linux boxes....and the new macbook pro (I can run linux on it too with VMWare and Parallels)

I'm figuring that between the two, I'll be able to cover about anything Premier does.....?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 12, 2012, 09:42:05 PM
Im a long term FCP user and have switched back to Premiere (which I used long before FCP was out)

FCPX is not for me.  I'm old school and from a linear background.  Tracks/layers make sense.  Clinets demand tapes no matter how its shot, and sound engineers deamnd omfies for broadcast mixes, no matter what it's cut on.

If I were totally new to editing and didn't have such demands from clients I would give FCPX a good look, 64 bit, native H264 handling, open gl accelaration etc, good price.

However I fear the mac I type this on will be my last ever mac.   Premiere runs better on a PC costing £1000 less than a mac I would need to get full cuda etc.

Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.   
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 12, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.
Get FCP X. It's basically designed just for the prosumer market, though they have finally gotten in some of the key components (multi-cam, etc). The interfaces are nice, and unless you have specific experience in FCP 7 or Adobe, you won't notice anything that throws you.

FCP X was a huge marketing mistake for Apple; they pulled the rug out of a lot of users whose lives depended on FCP7 features. Had they done from the start what they eventually decided on (allowing new FCP7 licenses while improving X to its level), you'd have a lot less people angry with it.

I was one of the people that swore off X and said I'd go to Adobe once I had to...just because Apple handled it so poorly. This past week at work, we bought 3 licenses of X for the price of one Adobe license, and I have no regrets with it so far.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 12, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.
Yeah...they're going to lose the higher end pro market. But, that seems to be the way Apple was going; especially with rumors the Mac Pro may not continue on
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: 7enderbender on May 12, 2012, 10:02:31 PM

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

You could always go out and buy a Leica, then you wouldn't have to feel that you'd wasted your money on video.

Which video features of the 5DII do you find detrimental to your stills shooting ?

In fact, I can't go out and buy a Leica M9 with the lenses I'd want. I simply can't afford that and the EOS DSLR system is the best I can do. I know that this is a luxury complaint.

It's not the video features per se that are "detrimental" since I don't use them. It's that video and some other stuff has been crammed into modern SLRs that I pay for but don't need. Video is really the smaller issue. My biggest beef is still that with digital I'm forced to buy AF which I'm not too fond of. I never switched from FD to EOS for exactly that reason. When comparing the viewfinder of  my 25 year old AE-1 p to that of my 5DII it makes me still a bit sad.

And as you said - the only alternative in the digital world for guys and gals like me is buying into a viewfinder system for 20 grand or so. No can do.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: 7enderbender on May 12, 2012, 10:13:37 PM
Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Interesting. I never understood why people would buy a DSLR for its video capabilities. Yes, you get the large sensor and decent low light capabilities. But for serious filming don't you have to attach all sorts of expensive gizmos and struggle finding the right (off brand) lenses and third party firmware etc?

For that kind of money and effort I would just buy (or rent...) a professional video camera and call it a day.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 12, 2012, 10:28:41 PM
Nothing against video.  I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point.  If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck? 

Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.

The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.

Let me put it differently then.  Take a for example something like the 60D.  Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart.  Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example. 

A stills specialty camera.  That could catch Nikon flat-footed.  One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM.  Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 12, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Interesting. I never understood why people would buy a DSLR for its video capabilities. Yes, you get the large sensor and decent low light capabilities. But for serious filming don't you have to attach all sorts of expensive gizmos and struggle finding the right (off brand) lenses and third party firmware etc?

For that kind of money and effort I would just buy (or rent...) a professional video camera and call it a day.

Well, I suppose if I was shooting Hollywood, big cinema stuff, sure I'd likely get all the trappings...and higher end lenses.

But there is a LOT of upper end, indie stuff being shot with the 5D Mark II and now the III...with high end Canon lenses.

Yes, eventually, I'll get a shoulder rig, with the attachments for easier focus pulling...but for now, what I'm doing myself, I'll be using a tripod. I'll soon get a fluid head for it...and I"m looking to start with constructing a DIY stedi-cam type rig, and DIY rail for moving shots.....

I already have a zoom digital recorder, and I'll start likely with a simple Rode mic. I got some good advice on getting an adapter and lavalier (sp?) mike to hook to my iPhone that I can use for miking people too....that is a cheap start for sure.

And this, to me...is the best of both worlds. After hanging on here for the past months....and the research I've been doing. I'm completely stoked (did I just say that?) about still photography. I've gotten a great book, "Understanding Exposure"...and can't wait to try it out when it gets here.

Above all, this is for me to enjoy....but there are opportunities, and I've already gotten some contacts, that I can actually maybe start soon making some $$ to help pay it off what I just bought.

Who knows...with practice and getting to know more people (HUGE media activity down here in New Orleans due to the heavy tax credits for films, etc)....maybe some day, I can actually make some cash on the side that is worthwhile.

But, that's just gravy if it happens. I'm just wanting to video some idea myself and friends have...and start taking some great shots on stills.
New Orleans, does have it share of stuff to photograph.
:)

C
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
In fact, I can't go out and buy a Leica M9 with the lenses I'd want. I simply can't afford that and the EOS DSLR system is the best I can do. I know that this is a luxury complaint.

Well, there are stills only cameras, and there are video cameras that support stills. If the ones with video functionality happen to be consistently cheaper than the stills-only models, you might reconsider your assumption that this functionality results in higher prices.

Quote
It's that video and some other stuff has been crammed into modern SLRs that I pay for but don't need.

In what sense do you pay for it ? If there is a cheaper product that doesn't have video, why not just buy that instead ? If there isn't a cheaper product, again, maybe your assumption that the video functionality drives up the price is incorrect.

If you pay for it -- if a $200 camcorder is a viable product, just how expensive can it really be to add it ?

Quote
And as you said - the only alternative in the digital world for guys and gals like me is buying into a viewfinder system for 20 grand or so. No can do.

You could also buy a previous generation digital camera.

The rational choice would be to get the choice that best fits your needs for the lowest price possible. If that product happens to also include video functionality, the inevitable conclusion is that despite the supposed "costs" of video  functionality, the camera with video ultimately proved to be the best value proposition.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 12, 2012, 10:48:26 PM
You could also buy a previous generation digital camera.

1DS3 has no video and look at the quality of the image that it gives -  low ISO performance is as good as anything else Canon sells today with a product that is a year older than the 5DII. Perhaps there is something that impacts the still performance when video is added (the 1DS3 does not have the same sensor as the 5DII)

The 40D also delivers an excellent image and the 5D as well

Perhaps ........
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 12, 2012, 10:51:34 PM
Let me put it differently then.  Take a for example something like the 60D.  Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart.  Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example. 

A stills specialty camera.

Then it would basically be a 7D (at a lower price) which is their stills specialty camera. even though they threw in video, no flip screen, no magic lantern and a bunch of stills oriented features -- it's a stills camera.

It seems that your complaints amount to generic complaining that the 7D is "too expensive" .

I think there is a sound business reason that the product you propose has never seen light of day -- just not viable. They wouldn't sell it in sufficient quantities to be able to get the price down.

Quote
That could catch Nikon flat-footed.  One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM.  Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.

They already have the 7D. Lowering prices of your high end products much of a strategy for success.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 12, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Profit maximization occurs when marginal cost equals marginal revenue. Video features don't increase the marginal cost much, most of the added cost is in the fixed cost of firmware development.   

I could see it shifting up the marginal revenue curve because video modes are desireable(for some). Thus the general appeal of the camera means a higher equilibrium price.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 13, 2012, 12:53:38 AM
Let me put it differently then.  Take a for example something like the 60D.  Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart.  Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example. 

A stills specialty camera.

Then it would basically be a 7D (at a lower price) which is their stills specialty camera. even though they threw in video, no flip screen, no magic lantern and a bunch of stills oriented features -- it's a stills camera.

It seems that your complaints amount to generic complaining that the 7D is "too expensive" .

I think there is a sound business reason that the product you propose has never seen light of day -- just not viable. They wouldn't sell it in sufficient quantities to be able to get the price down.

Quote
That could catch Nikon flat-footed.  One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM.  Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.

They already have the 7D. Lowering prices of your high end products much of a strategy for success.

Not griping about cost on 7D, just using that as an example as I am familiar with 60D and 7D.  Use two other adjacent Canon camera bodies if you prefer.  Canon camera systems compete with Nikon on tiers.  Nikon has a camera to match each level of Canon.  I am saying only that Canon could steal a march on Nikon by adding more features than the corresponding Nikon equivalent, and that the distinction of "no video" could prevent the enhanced model from directly undercutting the system above it in the Canon lineup. 
And that "astrophysics" camera had not "seen the light of day" until the day it did pop out into the light of day.  If a specialty that esoteric can be deemed "viable", then how wild and crazy is releasing a stills-only camera?  That is a proven product, with a large proven market, as stills cameras were the ONLY DSLR product until just 5 years ago or so.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Hillsilly on May 13, 2012, 01:26:35 AM
In the olden days, when film ruled the roost, there was still the great disparity in price between consumer cameras and professional equipment.  But photos from the cheapest camera looked identical to the photos from the most expensive (assuming the same lens, film etc).  The only reason to pay more was for a tougher body, more fps, faster AF, and better viewfinder.  If you were simply seeking "best 35mm image quality", it made little difference how expensive the camera body was.

That's no longer the case.  Now, people have to spend a lot more if they are seeking "best image quality from a non medium format camera".  And if this is what they are seeking, they will be looking at a 5Diii or D800.  And I don't see any problem with people thinking that way.  But the 5Diii and D800 are expensive.  And that's because they do have some many capabilities, functions and features.  It is actually surprising that they are as cheap as they are.

They are regular rumours of a bare bones Canon Full Frame camera.  I'd be very curious to see what price such a camera could sell for.  I think there is a market for a very simple camera that had superior image quality.  If Canon could sell such a camera for around the $1,500 - $1,800 mark then they will rule the camera world for many years to come.  Everyone who's a crop camera user and has had a nagging doubt that their pictures would be better if they only had a full frame camera would buy one.  I'm hoping this is the mirrorless camera that's coming.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 13, 2012, 03:34:10 AM
In the olden days, when film ruled the roost, there was still the great disparity in price between consumer cameras and professional equipment.  But photos from the cheapest camera looked identical to the photos from the most expensive (assuming the same lens, film etc).  The only reason to pay more was for a tougher body, more fps, faster AF, and better viewfinder.  If you were simply seeking "best 35mm image quality", it made little difference how expensive the camera body was.

That's no longer the case.  Now, people have to spend a lot more if they are seeking "best image quality from a non medium format camera".  And if this is what they are seeking, they will be looking at a 5Diii or D800.  And I don't see any problem with people thinking that way.  But the 5Diii and D800 are expensive.  And that's because they do have some many capabilities, functions and features.  It is actually surprising that they are as cheap as they are.

They are regular rumours of a bare bones Canon Full Frame camera.  I'd be very curious to see what price such a camera could sell for.  I think there is a market for a very simple camera that had superior image quality.  If Canon could sell such a camera for around the $1,500 - $1,800 mark then they will rule the camera world for many years to come.  Everyone who's a crop camera user and has had a nagging doubt that their pictures would be better if they only had a full frame camera would buy one.  I'm hoping this is the mirrorless camera that's coming.

Like the new Leica monochrome is barebones?

Of course cheapness is not the prime criteria, IQ would be. How about 22mp, no filter, 6fps, ff, ef mount, good af, AF linked metering, very simple controls for $2000
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Marsu42 on May 13, 2012, 06:04:34 AM
Magic Lantern is free.  How many people develop it?  If Canon needs millions to do what a couple of guys can do for free then Canon has a problem.

I like ml very much and use it all the time. However, it has to be said ml is an "if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces" project. If Canon would implement all the features ml has, they'd have to thoroughly test it or they'd be ripped to pieces in reviews or handle the feedback if tweaking has unintended side effects. Or Ken Rockwell would write it doesn't work right out of the box...

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

The drawback is that the firmware is more optimized for video, too, and this imho cuts features and innovation on the still side. But the argument that Canon making more money because of video and this benefits everyone is valid, too.

However the irony is that canon's protection of it's precious C series means it holds back on it's DSLRs not even offering 4:2:2 out uncompressed. huh :o

Unfortunately, this is the way the system works - but with ml and the current 18/21mp bodies, there is little missing from it, so Canon may very well leave out some features and make lots of $$$ with the C series and sell it to studios. The still photography side on less expensive bodies is much more crippled than the video side.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 07:06:50 AM
Not griping about cost on 7D, just using that as an example as I am familiar with 60D and 7D.  Use two other adjacent Canon camera bodies if you prefer.  Canon camera systems compete with Nikon on tiers.  Nikon has a camera to match each level of Canon.  I am saying only that Canon could steal a march on Nikon by adding more features than the corresponding Nikon equivalent, and that the distinction of "no video" could prevent the enhanced model from directly undercutting the system above it in the Canon lineup. 

Yes, but that's not a whole lot different to doing the same thing without removing video (marginal cost of video is next to zero). They could compete by making their high end models cheaper but that might not be very profitable for them.

Quote
And that "astrophysics" camera had not "seen the light of day" until the day it did pop out into the light of day.  If a specialty that esoteric can be deemed "viable", then how wild and crazy is releasing a stills-only camera? 

The "astrophysics" camera costs 50% more than the camera that it is based on. Stills only cameras are completely viable (see Leica), just not at the price point you want.

Niche models always sell at a premium, never a discount. For example, you might think that if someone wanted a mirrorless camera with a fixed prime lens, it would be really cheap. Well, the product exists (Fuji X100) but it turns out to be more expensive. Likewise the monochrome M9 is even more expensive than the color version (a premium upon a premium).

Quote
That is a proven product, with a large proven market, as stills cameras were the ONLY DSLR product until just 5 years ago or so.

Which is your other option if you want a stills only camera-- there is a strong secondary market for these cameras. They are still good cameras, "proven products" as you state. The part that isn't proven is competitiveness in todays market place. In todays market place they are niche products (much like film cameras are today)
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: briansquibb on May 13, 2012, 07:21:10 AM
Everyone is focusing on the cost of the engineering to add in video.

What I think most people are missing is that if it wasn't there then it would cost sales and that this cost (or loss) would dominate any such camera to either make it more expensive (Leica expensive) or unprofitable and thus never repeated.

Like the 5D, 40D, 1DS3?
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: preppyak on May 13, 2012, 12:46:24 PM
Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.
Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: stevenrrmanir on May 13, 2012, 01:14:34 PM
Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.
Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

History will look upon MKIII as a FAIL. Just watch.

A few years ago dSLR with video were unheard of and the interest was not there. Today it is the opposite - all have the video.

I would like to see a very good dSLR body for photos (that is why it is called a camera and NOT a videocamera) at a reasonable price. The MKIII at $3500 before taxes is a JOKE!

Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...

I want choices at good prices!
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: cayenne on May 13, 2012, 01:22:31 PM
Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.
Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

History will look upon MKIII as a FAIL. Just watch.

A few years ago dSLR with video were unheard of and the interest was not there. Today it is the opposite - all have the video.

I would like to see a very good dSLR body for photos (that is why it is called a camera and NOT a videocamera) at a reasonable price. The MKIII at $3500 before taxes is a JOKE!

Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...

I want choices at good prices!

I think you just need to try to wrap your head around the concept....that the video onboard these cameras...is NOT increasing the cost beyond your means.<P>
If you took the video capability off the 5D's.....they'd not drop a penny in price.
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: stevenrrmanir on May 13, 2012, 01:34:11 PM
Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.
Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

History will look upon MKIII as a FAIL. Just watch.

A few years ago dSLR with video were unheard of and the interest was not there. Today it is the opposite - all have the video.

I would like to see a very good dSLR body for photos (that is why it is called a camera and NOT a videocamera) at a reasonable price. The MKIII at $3500 before taxes is a JOKE!

Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...

I want choices at good prices!

I think you just need to try to wrap your head around the concept....that the video onboard these cameras...is NOT increasing the cost beyond your means.<P>
If you took the video capability off the 5D's.....they'd not drop a penny in price.

Exactly.

My point: greed

Canon now has an excuse, smoke and mirrors, to charge you $3500 because their camera does video as well... why $1500 between the MKII and MKIII - is MKIII worth that extra $1500?
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: zim on May 13, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
I think you just need to try to wrap your head around the concept....that the video onboard these cameras...is NOT increasing the cost beyond your means.<P>
If you took the video capability off the 5D's.....they'd not drop a penny in price.

Really?
Put two 5D3s (or any other camera with video for that matter) in a shop window. One has the video disabled no other changes, which one would sell? the shop would have to lower the price of the one without video to sell it.

I asked earlier is there definitive proof that video affects the quality of stills images? for me that’s the only issue. If not then there is no problem having video if it does then that’s the argument for splitting the line at the pro level.
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: Marsu42 on May 13, 2012, 03:31:16 PM
If you took the video capability off the 5D's.....they'd not drop a penny in price.

I don't know if the price would drop w/o video, but the body is geared towards still shooting because they didn't put in a swivel screen. I guess the reason is because video has still a cheapish appeal to old school dlsr shooters, and these would buy the 5d in any case.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: lady on May 13, 2012, 03:54:17 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: lady on May 13, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 13, 2012, 04:47:01 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

The reason the price has increased is because DEMAND has increased, thanks in large part to the success of the 5d2.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 05:39:58 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

They're always "greedy" in the sense that they want to maximize sales revenue. Price will inevitably drop if/when they lose enough sales for it to outweigh the extra revenue from the  higher prices. They probably figure that most of the target market for this are spending so much on glass, tripods, lighting etc that they won't sweat a few dollars on the body.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: lady on May 13, 2012, 05:54:12 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

They're always "greedy" in the sense that they want to maximize sales revenue. Price will inevitably drop if/when they lose enough sales for it to outweigh the extra revenue from the  higher prices. They probably figure that most of the target market for this are spending so much on glass, tripods, lighting etc that they won't sweat a few dollars on the body.

To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer. I believe the 5D2 was fairly priced at launch and would gladly have paid that amount of money for a camera. Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price. Some people will still pay the price for it (and if they can, then props to them) because to them as long as they have the product it doesn't matter. Other people will be more choosy.

If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value (usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: illogict on May 13, 2012, 06:01:11 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/ (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/)) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen (http://"http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDJPY%3DX+Interactive#symbol=;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;): the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: lady on May 13, 2012, 06:18:46 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/ (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/)) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen (http://"http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDJPY%3DX+Interactive#symbol=;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;): the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 06:32:03 PM
To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer.

And how do you determine what a product is "worth" ? We have something called a "market place" that does a very good job of determining what something is "worth".  I put it to you this thing called a market place will sort it out, and neither the manufacturer nor the consumer has the power to dictate what the optimal market price for the item is.

Quote
Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price.

To me, all that indicates is that "the consumer" is not part of the target market for that product. If the consumer doesn't find the item to be worth the asking price, they may decline to purchase it. For example, I declined to purchase a medium format digital back. This doesn't necessarily mean that the manufacturer is "greedy", just that it isn't right for me.  The same is true of the 5D Mark III (I already own a MkII)

That's how this thing called a "market place" works. If "the consumer" in aggregate, really believes the item to be overpriced, the item will fail to sell at that price and the seller will usually find that they get more revenue by lowering their price.

By the way, gradually lowering their price is one way to effectively do "price discrimination" -- that is, if 10 people are willing to pay 3500 and 10 people are willing to pay 3000, you want your revenue to be 65000, not 35000 (if you had a fixed price of 3500) or 60000.

Quote
If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value

I don't understand why anyone is "complaining". No-one is forcing them to buy that or any other product, and it's not as though that is the only body that is compatible with Canon gear. There are a number of other very good camera bodies that will work with the accessories you have.

Quote
(usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

Again, if you're in the target market for this product, AND you're one of the people who needs to own the latest model almost immediately after its release, you probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and really won't sweat $500.

Quote
I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.

Again, what is your measure of value ?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 13, 2012, 06:39:50 PM
Worth = the price you are prepared to pay

Value  = the price you are prepared to pay vs the market value
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: illogict on May 13, 2012, 06:49:13 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/ (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/)) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen (http://"http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDJPY%3DX+Interactive#symbol=;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;): the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.

That's because they're completely different products! Lens are to be expected to stay to the same price over large amounts of time, whereas printers, and low-end DSLRs are only on the market for a (low) fixed amount of time and discontinued. Moreover, they could even almost be sold at a loss as that would be tallied on the accessories (ink and lenses, respectively).

And, on Canon's point of view (accounts in Yen, again), the 5D mk3 cost less for the US consumer than the 5D mk2: 5D2 (+24-105) list price was $20083499, which is 420,000¥, whereas the 5D3 (+24-105) is $20124299, which is only 340,000¥!
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: RuneL on May 13, 2012, 07:18:39 PM
I for one like video, for me and many colleagues it has opened up new markets and the ability to do a wider range of jobs with almost ones existing gear. For me it's not wasted. The problem is when customers expect you to deliver both video and photography - neither the photography or video is particularly good.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: lady on May 13, 2012, 07:34:46 PM
To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer.

And how do you determine what a product is "worth" ? We have something called a "market place" that does a very good job of determining what something is "worth".  I put it to you this thing called a market place will sort it out, and neither the manufacturer nor the consumer has the power to dictate what the optimal market price for the item is.

Quote
Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price.

To me, all that indicates is that "the consumer" is not part of the target market for that product. If the consumer doesn't find the item to be worth the asking price, they may decline to purchase it. For example, I declined to purchase a medium format digital back. This doesn't necessarily mean that the manufacturer is "greedy", just that it isn't right for me.  The same is true of the 5D Mark III (I already own a MkII)

That's how this thing called a "market place" works. If "the consumer" in aggregate, really believes the item to be overpriced, the item will fail to sell at that price and the seller will usually find that they get more revenue by lowering their price.

By the way, gradually lowering their price is one way to effectively do "price discrimination" -- that is, if 10 people are willing to pay 3500 and 10 people are willing to pay 3000, you want your revenue to be 65000, not 35000 (if you had a fixed price of 3500) or 60000.

Quote
If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value

I don't understand why anyone is "complaining". No-one is forcing them to buy that or any other product, and it's not as though that is the only body that is compatible with Canon gear. There are a number of other very good camera bodies that will work with the accessories you have.

Quote
(usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

Again, if you're in the target market for this product, AND you're one of the people who needs to own the latest model almost immediately after its release, you probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and really won't sweat $500.

Quote
I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.

Again, what is your measure of value ?

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make. Some products sell for 50x what they cost to produce, while others might sell for 1.2x, 3x or even .8x. When nobody cares or does anything about it, these prices stay where they are. When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down. Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain. I've seen plenty of professionals with more than enough money to afford the 5D3 pointing out in reviews that the price wasn't equal to the value of the product, especially when considering competition. It's currently overpriced when keeping all of those factors in mind. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 13, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/ (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/)) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen (http://"http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDJPY%3DX+Interactive#symbol=;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;): the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.

That's because they're completely different products! Lens are to be expected to stay to the same price over large amounts of time, whereas printers, and low-end DSLRs are only on the market for a (low) fixed amount of time and discontinued. Moreover, they could even almost be sold at a loss as that would be tallied on the accessories (ink and lenses, respectively).

And, on Canon's point of view (accounts in Yen, again), the 5D mk3 cost less for the US consumer than the 5D mk2: 5D2 (+24-105) list price was $20083499, which is 420,000¥, whereas the 5D3 (+24-105) is $20124299, which is only 340,000¥!

Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Could it have something to do with the fact you can easily drive a Nissan for a few years, then a Ford for a few years, then a Honda for a few years, etc... with no problem?  But not so for an entire camera and lens system.  You can't put a Canon Lens on a Nikon body, and you can't put a Nikon lens on a Canon body (without a goofy adapter that sucks).  Therefore, the actual competition between Canon and Nikon is greatly dampened.  Most of the competition is with first-time buyers, who have yet to commit to a system and lock themselves in.  Once you have bought in to one system or another, it is very difficult to liquidate it all and start from scratch buying everything all over again in the competitor's system, so few people will do it.  This highly convenient fact has not gone unnoticed by Canon, who feels freer to charge a lot of money for their products.  As long as they feel enough people are buying, they will keep the prices as high as they possibly can.
The only real competition is from 3rd party lens makers, as they actually DO make lenses that fit all the major camera systems.  Maybe they will step it up on quality.  Or to some extent in the 4/3 convention lenses where several camera bodies accept lenses in that format from their real competitors.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Maybe they don't want to do this on their flagship products.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 08:42:11 PM

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value

That doesn't mean they are priced above their "value" -- it means that they have more value to some people than others. Value is subjective.

Quote
because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

Yes, (1) the product is worth more to some than others, and (2) some people are prepared to pay a premium to have the newest shiniest toy. Inevitably if the manufacturer sees that they can charge these people a premium they will use a higher initial price (like I mentioned before, this is a way for them to maximize sales revenue by catering to a variety of buyers).

They also use price discrimination via various rebate programs -- the cheapskates will wait until they can get it very cheaply, others will pay at some other point on the price curve.

Quote
First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make.

You can if you like decompose cost to the consumer as cost to make the product multiplied by profit margin, but that's not going to shed much light on the situation for two reasons. One is that costs are only relevant to the extent that they affect the supply curve. The second is that it is not absolute costs, profits and utility that matter, it is the marginal numbers.

Quote
When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down.


That might happen, or people might decline to buy the product, and the manufacturer are happy to sell a low volume of the product at a high price. Or the manufacturer might decide to use price discrimination to allow them to charge higher prices to people who are willing to pay them without losing more price sensitive customers (e.g. academic editions of software packages, rebate programs, etc).


Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Quote
Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain.

And that's the part I totally don't get. As the consumer, you get to determine what the marginal utility of the product is for you
. You can purchase or decline to purchase. You don't get to dictate what the marginal value of a sale is to the manufacturer, nor do you get to dictate what the marginal utility to any other buyer is.

For someone who doesn't find the product to meet their subjective notion of value, declining to purchase makes sense.  Just a reminder -- I am one of the people who declined to purchase the mark III.

If the complainers really were right, the manufacturer would be forced to reduce their price to accomodate the demands of the market place. But if this were the case, there would be no need to complain, just wait patiently for the manufacturer to get their introduction to reality. In this case, in my opinion, it is the complainers who are being introduced to reality (and aren't terribly happy with the process)

Quote
. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).

But that's smart -- they are using price discrimination to extract a premium from those who are willing to pay it. If it turns out that there are large numbers who would buy it for $3200 but not for $3000, they will probably lower their price (but not until they can build them fast enough to meet demand for those who want it at 3500)
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: preppyak on May 13, 2012, 08:55:23 PM
Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...
Because that hypothetical camera would have to sell as many units as the MkIII with video AND cost 30% less to produce (in R&D, manufacturing, etc) for Canon to offer it at $2500. Since selling fewer units would mean R&D/manufacturing costs aren't recouped the same...and $2500 is a 30% off discount from $3500.

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess they've done that research...and those calculations...and know they'd be hurting their sales by going that route. I'd say the fact the only non-video DSLR you can find is a luxury brand like Leica means other companies agree.
Title: Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
Post by: elflord on May 13, 2012, 09:36:43 PM
And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

yeah, that's the thing -- video is very much a Joe consumer feature. Those who want a high end stills only camera don't necessarily expect a discount for lack of video (Leica, Medium format, and some high end full frame SLRs).

A cheaper body is always feasible, but you're going to have to give up something that is important to high end users (not video, not "face detection", not "sports mode"). The problem is that the complainers want all the high end features (the same features that those with big budgets want) at a low price.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Richard8971 on May 13, 2012, 10:12:04 PM
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money. I mean honestly, what performance "upgrades" could my camera have if it wasn't trying to support video.

Canon, leave video to video cameras and leave DSLR's for stills. PLEASE???

I have not and will not shoot video on ANY of my DSLR's and I personally own three that can (5DII, T1i and 7D) and I hate the fact it is even there.

D
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: wickidwombat on May 13, 2012, 10:38:25 PM
more annoying than any cost increase is making funtional changes to the detrement of stills on a DSLR
a perfect example of this is making the AA filter stronger not weaker to fix moire. this comes at the expense of still image sharpness which give the 5Dmk2 sensor a slight sharpness edge. the difference is not huge but its there. Put video in fine but dont impact on still shooting functionality or performance to improve video performance leave those things for the video models / cameras
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 13, 2012, 10:43:44 PM
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 14, 2012, 12:07:38 AM
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

 Just a couple years ago I decided to invest in the Canon camera system. For me the idea or thought was -  I was stepping up to a very high end digital photography (DSLR) system, I could eventually work my way up to have F.F. and great glass. I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system.  >:(

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs.They are the jack of all trades & master of none.
 I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off......... 
I want the best camera (((not the best video camera))) that I can get for the money I pay. Any compromise likely  will  negatively impact my still photography which thus negates my primary reason for buying into this system to begin with.

This is already an expensive hobby/occupation so please yes a couple of extra 100 dollars here & couple of extra 100 dollars there add up really fast especially if you try to estimate what you'll be investing over the next 2 or 3  years.  In my case it appears to be over 3000 dollars way over (u.s.d.). :o Unfortunately that is a substantial chunk of change for me and my budget to part with.  :'( :'(

 As an example-
I just recently ended up buying the sigma 17 - 50mm 2.8 at less than half the price of Canons. I personally couldn't justify the humongous price difference. After much research I definitely feel that Canon is way way way over pricing this piece of glass. Not only can I not afford to have my budget negatively impacted from being taken advantage of but I also just plain don't like it!
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Richard8971 on May 14, 2012, 12:16:32 AM
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it...

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting here are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system.

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs. I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off.........  I want it to be the best camera (not the best video camera that I can get for the money I pay. Compromise negatively impacts my still photography which thus negates my reason for buying into this system to begin with.

I have a minute and the above answers your question. I bought a DSLR for stills, NOT video. I wonder how much better my camera would be if it wasn't drug down with unnecessary crap like video and it's support. Oh well...

D
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AG on May 14, 2012, 01:51:24 AM
Can we stop flogging this...

(http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/flogging_dead_horse_what.jpg)

If you honestly believe that adding video to your DSLR has hindered its ability in ANY way then your fooling yourself. Thats like saying that a phone can't have an MP3 player built in because it may affect the way you can make calls.

Then as soon as someone proves that its not the case, people jump up and down, pointing and shouting and claiming that suddenly they have "factual proof" that it happened to their nephews best friends cousins neighbours brother, and he's a professional photographer so it must be true.

Lets be honest here.

Does it even freaking matter??

If you believe that video is hindering your picture taking abilities then either A. buy a camera that does not have video (Leica for example) or B. stop taking pictures because obviously your not as good as you think you are.

Simple solutions.

As for video raising the costs of the bodies... honestly? Id have to say not as much as what pure profiteering is doing.
Supply and demand.
You have a camera that has no video and you may sell 2000 of them a year, you take that same camera and add state of the art video feature via firmware (because lets face it its the same freaking sensor either way, they didn't hinder it just to make it shoot videos). Suddenly they sell 1 million copies.

If you were a burgeoning company that wants to make money and have a "HOT" device on your hands would you sell that for the same price as the model that sold 2000 copies or would you milk the market for everything its got and try selling it for 30% more.
Then the internets get flooded by people blaming the video for the reason why their beloved camera now costs 30% more than the previous model, especially since they "don't ever and will never use it".

Its not video raising costs....its GREED and Profit.

Plain and simple.

Can we let these types of threads die now please (i miss the I'm selling all my crap and moving to Nikon thanks to the D800E threads)??

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 14, 2012, 02:15:57 AM
I think most people would agree that yes the price is all about supply and demand.

I also believe most people would admit that videos is making an increased impact.

I myself for one am not going to jump brands, turncoat nor quit photography.  :o

I have to wonder if people saying shut up grin and bear it are actually closet videographers. Hmm?  :-[  :-X  :-[

Lol love the cartoon.  :D
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Hillsilly on May 14, 2012, 04:25:48 AM
But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.  We'd have variable ISO across the sensor, inbuilt ND grads, GPS, Bluetooth, WIFI connectivity, inbuilt ST-E3 functionality, inbuilt IR autofocus assist, improved weathersealing and durability, carbon fibre camera bodies, increased processing power, buffers, longer lasting batteries etc etc.  They'd also have the money to develop an adapter for EX speedlites that provides wireless connectivity with the ST-E3 and 600EX.  They'd even have money to develop a longer camera strap.  But instead Canon has chosen to develop DSLR video features.

I'm not saying that Canon (or any other manufacturer) is wrong with this.  Clearly, the market has spoken and we've said that we value video more.  last year, I even went out and bought a camera specifically because I wanted to take videos with a DSLR.  But to answer the initial question, cameras could be improved from a pure photographic perspective if video development resources were allocated to other areas.  But I think Canon has their priorities right in developing video.  My only concern is how much people have to pay to get top image quality (especially if they decide to discontinue the 5Dii).
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: NormanBates on May 14, 2012, 05:44:00 AM
the mistake there is to believe that "Canon has $X to put towards new product development".

it has $X if it's going to develop a stills-only camera (which they predict will sell A units) and $Y if it's going to be a stills-and-video camera (which they'll predict will sell B units)

none of us has any idea what X, Y, A, B are, but I'd guess that a $3K camera that doesn't record video won't sell as much as one that does, so A<B, and I'd guess that means X<Y

in any case, the cost of including video is very low: once you have live view, all you have to do is record that signal feed; and the encoding is not expensive: the video processor in the $15K Canon C300 costs less than $50 to manufacture (it can also be found on $300 consumer videocameras); please start a thread complaining that the 5D3 is more expensive than it need be because it has weather sealing that you don't need because you don't ever shoot in the rain; it's much more expensive than this silly video thing

as for the price hike, don't blame the yen, video, or anything like that: blame Canon
the D800 is also made in japan (yen argument us bollocks) and also shoots pretty decent video (see recent Philip Bloom review and comparison with 5D3), and it's $3K instead of $3.5K, while beating the 5D3 in nearly every metric that matters for stills


edit: I'm a video shooter, but if I buy a 5D3 it will be 90% for stills only
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 05:44:21 AM
@kdsands

Just noticed you've installed magic lantern on your T2i.

So are you a closet videographer then?   ;)

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM
yes - video raises the price of DSLRs.
Because up to now, Video-DSLRs are still the cheapest available large-sensor camcorders, video shooters are happy to pay whatever is charged for a video-DSLR, as long as it is substantially lower than what a similarly capable dedicatedvideo-cam costs. This drives up prices of DSLRs for stills shooters.

yes, video is wasted on the majority of all DSLR-buyers
only a smallish proportion of purchasers uses (hi-end) video capabilities. Many others may capture a few short clips  after purchase "to try it out", but will never seriously use video in DSLRs at all. Videos that are up to the standars of "enthusiast amateur still photos" are not easy to produce. In terms of creative imagination, skills, time and money for planning, capture and post production, even a fairly simple video is beyond the realm of most amatuer DSLR purchasers. 

I for one would love to get a DSLR like the 5D3 with all video-capabilitis disabled in firmware [except liveview] at a 25-50% discount on current price.   
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 14, 2012, 07:31:04 AM
But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.

It doesn't follow, because X is not some fixed constant. The amount they're prepared to invest depends on the anticipated returns. That's why stills only cameras are not cheap -- they might put the money into those extra features but they need to charge more per unit shipped to get it back.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: OldSalt on May 14, 2012, 08:00:55 AM
I for one am not at all interested in shooting video.  I was perfectly happy with my 450D (last Canon Rebel DSLR to not have a video function) and only upgraded to improve my still shot capabilities.  I also believe it is impossible to add video into a DSLR body without increasing the cost, IT JUST CANNOT HAPPEN!   Now I would not want to speculate on how a MFR such as Canon might go about determining the return/retail costs, since there are so many factors that go into such an analysis, but I guarantee you the cost of development and features for video function are ADDED to the end cost, MFR's are not giving us anything, ever.
    So IMHO there is an increased cost to adding the video functionality albeit probably not a significant added cost to retail (10% is my WAG) and the limited R&D costs are also shared in the development of a DSLR thereby taking away valuable funds that might go towards still photography features that are at present being spread a crossed both still and video.  Could they build a "still only" and create a single minded focused purpose built DSLR with today’s modern features strictly as they are related to still photography (such as a option of in-camera HDR) and sell it, I'm sure they could but I doubt it would cost any less simply because the video features taken out of the body would be replaced with added still photography features.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 08:31:09 AM
I just don't get it.

If you don't want to use video then don't.  Some of us do. 

Canon have been adding to their feature set (in camera wireless flash, increased ISO ranges) but folk will always find something to moan about.

I use about 15% of my cameras interface (video postion, M and if I'm feeling lazy Av) I also use the depth of field preview a lot, although I know that many folk do not.

I wish Canon would make a DSLR with XLR audio inputs, a headphone socket, but without spot metering, without a 2s self timer, without a P or CA or PIC modes.  In fact, lets bin Tv mode and AiFocus whilst we are at it.  I'll keep all the AF points on my 7D, but I wish canon would make a rebel with one single centre AF point, as the rest are entirely superflous to my needs.  I would rather the cost of developing firmware that lets you switch your shutter and Ae lock buttons was instead spent on an external audio level control.

But then it would be a camera for me.  Not for the x'ooo's of people needed to make the product commercially viable.

I have a 7D a 550D and have recently bought a 600D.  And the swivel LCD and audio levels make the 600D the camera I go to most for video.  Which is now my main usage of my EOS cameras (I've used EOS cameras since the early 90's, first was a 1000fn, followed by a 5, a 300, a 3, a 50e, a 300x, a 400D, and I sold a fair few cameras in my days in camera retail)

I love that canon are adding decent video functionalty to their DSLRs.  And my EOS is often first choice ahead of the 2/3" ENG camera I use where longer record runs are required.

I could live without CA, P, Tv, BULB, DEP, PIC, I could live without any ISO setting above 1600 (in fact I would prefer a range from ISO25-800) I could live without AF pretty much entirely, and to keep the cost down, just give me centreweighted average metering.

My point is that Canon aren't making cameras for any one individual. Believe me, that with the exception of the 1D-C and the C300 & C500, video plays second fiddle to photo on every EOS camera.   I can't believe the offence some folk take at the inclusion of video.   Really?  Go and march on a bank.   Stand for election.  Open a soup kitchen and get some real problems.
 
You don't like video, hell, don't use it.  It really is that simple.  Your stills are not being done down because of it. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
I think one of the problems is that the anti-video crowd believe that Canon develop their specs first, then develop the tech & features to go in it.  It's more likely the reverse.  Sure, they have a rough idea of what the next camera will be, but not the details -- the market will determine that.  Let's consider my guess about the time timelime of a new hypothetical 70D.

Ongoing schedule: Canon's various R&D departments continue to develop tech that could go into their crop line: several types of sensors, screens, processing chips, etc.  This process never stops, they're just always trying to develop better and/or cheaper components.  These same departments work on the tech for all of their models, not just the 70D, so the new screen or sensor could go into a 7DMII as well, depending on later market conditions.

About 6-9 months before product announcement, Canon must start to "lock down" their feature set.  They will know from experience how long it takes to prepare a factory line for each new component and the finish assembly.  Features will be locked down in the order required to lock down other components, and by the prep schedule of the factory lines.   E.g., they must lock down the body size and shape before locking down layout of internal components.  At this point, nearly all the tech is already designed, prototyped, tested,  and estimates are made of production costs.  Next, Canon checks the market conditions, and also examines tea leaves to determine what the main competition is likely to produce.  From this, they select the components to go in the new product.  In some cases they may be able to delay this decision for a while, but at some point they must just go with a choice or delay production.

Probably around 3 months from launch, all the features must be locked down.  Now the firmware engineers start working overtime to polish and test the firmware with the exact feature set.   Occasionally, the firmware engineers will find problems that can only be solved by a hardware change (e.g. processor is just not fast enough for a given task); this delays production while R&D determines the cheapest of their dev components that will do the job.

From 3 months to launch: factory lines ramp up, marketing department goes to work, writers go to work.

Based on my assumptions (yes, these are my _assumptions_) there's nowhere in the process that video can *substantially*increase cost, it's just one part of the process.  Sure, it might take $10 extra or even $20 -- but nothing worth worrying about.  To put it another way, they sell $150 p&s cameras that take HD video roughly on par with the SLR line (the main difference is the sensor quality), and I refuse to believe that much more than $20 is the cost of including video.

In short, considering R&D spread over multiple models and the relatively decent video quality in cheap P&S cameras, it's seems like a lot to swallow the notion that it's a significant cost in DSLR's.


Are there any production engineers out there who can critique the above hypothetical timeline?

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 14, 2012, 09:41:59 AM
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 10:17:00 AM
@briansquibb
Quote
for example 22mp is a video size

Really?  How do you come to that conclusion?  On a chip that is neither natively 5:4, 4:3 or 16:9 aspect into the bargain?

This really is getting to the nonsensical stage.  Try and find any comparable product at a comparable spec and price that doesn't feature some kind of video capture.

If you don't like it, don't use it.  Really interested to hear the logic of how any 3:2 aspect chip is video sized, let alone how 22MP specifically is a video resolution.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 10:18:42 AM
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

I think this is unknowable: given that the overwhelming critiques of the 5D2 had nothing to do with resolution, we could easily attribute this to other design requirements, such as fps, and not drawing sales away from the 1DX.  Again, look at the D800: video is comparable to the 5D3 but higher MP, so we can't really say that 22MP is a "video size."  Without more detailed and definitive info (which we may never have) there's no reason to believe this was video driven as there are plenty of other plausible reasons.  There are lots of wedding/event still photographers who are overjoyed that it's not greater than 22MP.  28MP would be a better landscape resolution, but is that the 5d3's market position?

While it is plausible 22MP was selected for video, it's no more so than other explanations.  I think it would be more legitimate to complain that Canon hasn't release a true landscape camera (D800 direct competition) than to ask why the 5D3 has the specs it has.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 14, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

I think this is unknowable: given that the overwhelming critiques of the 5D2 had nothing to do with resolution, we could easily attribute this to other design requirements, such as fps, and not drawing sales away from the 1DX.  Again, look at the D800: video is comparable to the 5D3 but higher MP, so we can't really say that 22MP is a "video size."  Without more detailed and definitive info (which we may never have) there's no reason to believe this was video driven as there are plenty of other plausible reasons.  There are lots of wedding/event still photographers who are overjoyed that it's not greater than 22MP.  28MP would be a better landscape resolution, but is that the 5d3's market position?

While it is plausible 22MP was selected for video, it's no more so than other explanations.  I think it would be more legitimate to complain that Canon hasn't release a true landscape camera (D800 direct competition) than to ask why the 5D3 has the specs it has.

I was asking the simple question - has the 5DIII design been compromised as a stills camera by incorporating video?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: unfocused on May 14, 2012, 10:55:54 AM
This is ridiculous. Video doesn't increases the cost of cameras, it reduces it.

Cameras are a mass produced object. It's not like your 5DIII is being handcrafted and each feature must be individually installed. It's a mass production item.

Let me explain. Manufacturer "A" makes $100 profit on each unit they sell of Product "B." They have a goal of $10,000 profit. They sell 100 units, they make $10,000. But, if they add feature "C" to the product, it will reduce their per unit profits by $10.

But at the same time, they know that adding feature "C" will boost their sales by 30%, so when they sell Product "B" at $90 profit, they actually net $11,700, exceeding their sales goal. So, instead of selling Product "B" at $90 profit, because they have increased their sales volume, they decide to cut the price by $3 and sell it at $87 profit. The company still surpasses their sales goals and consumers get a product at less cost, but with more features.

As long as the ratio between the increased sales due to video exceeds the marginal cost of including the feature, the per unit cost (which is what we consumers should be concerned with) is actually lower with video than without.  This is what is called the "industrial revolution" and it happened about 150 years ago.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 11:25:04 AM
Ah but the cost of the plastic switch could have made the 5D3 36MP instead. 

Or some such absolute bo11ocks.

I've stopped banging my head against the wall.  Nikon trumped Canon for a change, so it must be the fault of the video (which the D800 also has)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 11:40:26 AM
I was asking the simple question - has the 5DIII design been compromised as a stills camera by incorporating video?

Probably not.  We can never know for certain.   Therefore it's not worth fretting about.

Not all simple questions have simple answers.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 14, 2012, 11:52:01 AM
Really?  How do you come to that conclusion?  On a chip that is neither natively 5:4, 4:3 or 16:9 aspect into the bargain?
I'll let another user answer that for you

a slight increase to 22mp is intended for EOS-Movie, horizontal pixels 5760 is exactly 3 times of 1920, this indicates that 5D Mark III will do a full-sensor readout and 3x3 pixel binning to produce clean, sharp and almost-no-moire HD video.

Now, that's hypothetical for the reasoning, though it makes sense to make a sensor that can be used among many cameras (including the C cameras) that works well with video capture. But, they might also have found 22mp to be compromise between low-light and resolution that they liked best.

That moire is basically non-existent in video would lead me to believe that the sensor size isn't accidentally a solution for that, but, I wouldn't say its the only reason. Canon settled on 21mp for the 5dII with video as an after-thought; it might just be the magic number for them

Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image
It's an interesting question. I'd have to imagine that there was a slight compromise there...though, a true video person would be even happier with 4x4 binning, which would mean a sensor in the 35mp range. Canon have made sensors MUCH larger than that, so, they are clearly capable of such a thing. I imagine they tested it and decided that for the target market (wedding, event, indie movie set), low-light handling was more important than that added resolution, and their sensors only allowed them to go so far.

So, sure, it could have been 28mp, but, do you really need that extra resolution if it cost camera a stop of light, or didn't solve issues from the older 5dII (moire, etc)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 11:55:33 AM
This is ridiculous. Video doesn't increases the cost of cameras, it reduces it.
wrong.

As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd, as Canon does not offer a video-less version of the camera (say a a reasonable 2500) but prefers to demand a whopping 3.500 for a video-enabled camera that only a minority of purchasers will ever use to regularly capture video.   

The only one "spoiling the game" for Canon is Nikon with its D800, which offers the whole video shebang plus better stills performance for 600 less. This is why Nikon will sell a boatload of their new DSLRs and is gaining market share against Canon in 2012.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 14, 2012, 11:57:02 AM
This is why Nikon will sell a boatload of their new DSLRs and is gaining market share against Canon in 2012.
Got a link for that? As I imagine it'd be pretty impossible for the D800 to have gained Nikon market-share when its barely even available in stores
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 12:38:14 PM
Apparently we've got three lines of reasoning:

1. Basic video features increase the cost to produce the camera enough to affect end-user price.  This one is likely false, but ultimately unknowable.  (marginal cost to add basic video is low, and overall sales would suffer without video)

2. High-quality video features alter design decisions, resulting in compromise of still features.  Maybe, but it's Canon's game and they can do what they want.  The market will sort this out.

3. High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in higher end-user prices.  If true, this is music to Canon's ears, and this would be a great business decision.  Like it or hate it, we're stuck with it.

For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand.  If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

These are just opinions and speculations, I have no hard data.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 12:49:39 PM
Quote
For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

Good enough for the Avengers and Black Swan though @Orangutan

I found the 5D2 impossible to shoot on without all the bells and whistles, and the bells and whistles defeated the point of the small form, also depth of field was so unforgiving, and the rolling shutter is much worse on the 5D2 than anything thats came since, including the 7D, 550D 600D.

The 7D also has live HDMI output at 1080, which for a long time made it the best option for folk wanting hidef live monitoring.   In fact when I bought my 7D it was the only DSLR with a dedicated PAL /25p mode.

And I'm not a serious enthusiast.  I actually get paid.  No DSLR is going to replace a conventional ENG camera for many types of job, but for some they offer awesome bang per buck.

And whichever method of pixel binning (the 3x3 would worry me, as this then takes no account of the bayer pattern, which would actually cause more false colouration) if the AA filter isn't right (and it isn't on a camera optimised for 18, 21 or 22MP) then you still need to do a little work in post, which along with selective use of MarvelsDSLR plug in (free) irons out most moire problems.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 01:05:38 PM

Good enough for the Avengers and Black Swan though @Orangutan


Granted, there are exceptions, but it's probably not enough to affect the price.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 14, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand.  If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.
I'd say you nailed it...though, I think the 7D might fall into category 1 simply because it hits a market that wasn't really covered in any way (action sports). To get a weather-proofed body that is very portable with great IQ; it basically didn't exist. Now they have 7D's (and GoPro's), and its proliferated that market a good deal.

But that is less because of the IQ, it's more for the build quality in such an affordable camera.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: unfocused on May 14, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
Apparently we've got three lines of reasoning:

1. Basic video features increase the cost to produce the camera enough to affect end-user price.  This one is likely false, but ultimately unknowable.  (marginal cost to add basic video is low, and overall sales would suffer without video)

2. High-quality video features alter design decisions, resulting in compromise of still features.  Maybe, but it's Canon's game and they can do what they want.  The market will sort this out.

3. High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in higher end-user prices.  If true, this is music to Canon's ears, and this would be a great business decision.  Like it or hate it, we're stuck with it.

For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand.  If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

These are just opinions and speculations, I have no hard data.

You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 01:16:17 PM
Granted, there are exceptions, but it's probably not enough to affect the price.
Ibelieve demand for video-use 7D / 5D2s though a minority of purchasers has still been high enough to impact  the price.

We would know for sure, had Canon sold these cams in "still photography version" and a "Video-enabled" version for twice the price. These DSLRs would have still been dirt cheap for professional video use. In that model, Canon would have made those users pay, who are actually using the video crap, rather than the majority of purchasers who hardly ever use their DSLRs for video.

In the current model stills photographers are actually subsidizing commercial video use and get cameras that are not optimized for still photography but for video use. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: preppyak on May 14, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
In the current model stills photographers are actually subsidizing commercial video use and get cameras that are not optimized for still photography but for video use.
Consider all the upgrades that differentiate the 5dII from the 5dIII and tell me which were critical to videographers...and which were critical to a stills shooter. You'd really have to be insane to say its not optimized for stills, since the only video specific upgrade is the choice of video codecs.

6fps, 61pt AF, a processor dedicated to AF, hell, even the MP aren't what a videographer would demand normally (more or less would be more ideal). It has no XLR inputs, it has no ND filters, no focus peaking, no zebras, I could go on and on. If the 5DIII was an 8MP camera that did 4k video (like Sony's FS-700), you might have a point.

If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 01:34:48 PM
You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Unfocused, I'm basically on your side, and I did not miss that argument: I was just re-iterating my understanding of the viewpoints of the "yes" camp.  One one hand, more sales drive down per-unit cost by spreading fixed costs across a larger number of units.  On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit.  E.g. iPads.  Does it actually do this?  I don't know, and I doubt we have access to data to prove one way or another.  We only know that per-unit production cost goes down with increased sales.

My main argument against the "yes it does" camp is that there is no reason to believe that video adds significantly to the R&D and manufacturing costs.  Any price increase would be due to market forces, and you can't expect any company to forgo extra profit to accommodate a minority of purists.

Personally, I believe the 5D3 was designed as a wedding/event camera, and it hits that spot pretty nicely. 

In the end, we just don't know the answer, so it's not worth fretting over. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: unfocused on May 14, 2012, 01:51:56 PM
You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Unfocused, I'm basically on your side, and I did not miss that argument: I was just re-iterating my understanding of the viewpoints of the "yes" camp.  One one hand, more sales drive down per-unit cost by spreading fixed costs across a larger number of units.  On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit.  E.g. iPads.  Does it actually do this?  I don't know, and I doubt we have access to data to prove one way or another.  We only know that per-unit production cost goes down with increased sales.

My main argument against the "yes it does" camp is that there is no reason to believe that video adds significantly to the R&D and manufacturing costs.  Any price increase would be due to market forces, and you can't expect any company to forgo extra profit to accommodate a minority of purists.

Personally, I believe the 5D3 was designed as a wedding/event camera, and it hits that spot pretty nicely. 

In the end, we just don't know the answer, so it's not worth fretting over.

Oh yeah, I realize that you get it. Wasn't trying to imply otherwise. And, like you, I agree the "cost" of video  isn't worth bothering with. I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet. :)

And yes, I absolutely agree with you that the 5DIII was designed with a very specific market in mind and seems to be succeeding quite nicely with that market.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Orangutan on May 14, 2012, 01:57:29 PM
I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet. :)

http://xkcd.com/386/ (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 02:32:50 PM
If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X

actually I like that find that pricing differential perfectly right. :-)

And I want Canon to offer the same choice between a stills-oriented model (price = 100%) and a video-optimized model (@ 200% price) also at the 5D, 7D and rebel level.

I don't see any reason, why Canon does not make reasonably cheap large-sensored "real video-cams" without mirror, without mirrorbox, without OVF, with video-optimized features galore ... why oh why does this have to be implemented in stills-optimized DSLRs of all things?

If Canon would at last bring an FF mirrorless to market ... and i fthat thing also had video in it - then I would say, alright, in a mirrorless camera, video really is a "most natural thing", but certainly not in DSLRs. So while we stills shooters only get DSLRs, give us at least an option for "lowest price possible" stills-only DSLRs and charge thos, that need and want video EXTRA for an EXTRA feature. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 14, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 15, 2012, 01:47:29 AM
As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?

I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 15, 2012, 05:54:21 AM
I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....

Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine.  I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

The real picture is more nuanced than this -- there are a variety of stills users with different budgets and requirements.
 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 15, 2012, 07:00:51 AM
Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine.  I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

I agree with you, that Canon's product line-up does not make much sense.

Why are their dedicated video-cams so bloody expensive? I am talking about the Cxxx-line. These things must be way cheaper to build than a 5D3 ... no mirrorbox+contents, no prism, no Phase-AF system ... all fairly expensive components requiring a lot of very careful and precise adjustment during manufacturing.

Why is there no "entry"-level C100 with video capabilities at the level of a 5D 3 and costs @ around USD/Euro 2000?

The only product where I see some sense for convergence stills+video is the 1D X ...  fast tool for image jounalists, sports professionals. But then again, why on earth did Canon announce a 1D C ... instead of a C600 or whatever number that would be so much miore suitable to (hi end) video and could be manufactured for a lot less money? And why would somebody prefer a clumsy DSLR-body over a video-optimized camera to shoot hi-end video/cine stuff? Just does not make any sense to me. The only thing that makes sense to me is that video-purchasers get a choice between PL and EF lens mount on the heigher-end gear. If Canon wants to call all their imaging gear "EOS", that does not bother me, although I fail to see compelling reasons to do so.   

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature? Make video users pay a reasonble amount more for the video feature, rather than charging everybody for it, whether you want it or not. For those, needing both - stills and video - that  would still be a lot cheaper than buying a dedicated video cam plus a stills DSLR.

Since Nikon is selling the D800, a better stills camera with similar video capability for less than what the 5D 3 costs, the following  price points would seem about right to me:
5D3 stills only -  USD/€ 2500
5D3 stills + video [the one we got) - USD/€ 2,900 ... matching D800 price
7D II stills only - ca. USD/€ 1700
7D II stills + video - ca. € 2000
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 15, 2012, 07:38:33 AM
And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price. It doesn't work well as a way to do price discrimination either because some stills-only people are prepared to spend big $, so they gain some revenue by letting in the cheapskates, but they lose sales dollars from those who would have been willing to pay the higher price. The right way to do price discrimination is to ensure that those who are willing to spend more don't buy the cheaper product.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 15, 2012, 07:49:08 AM
And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 15, 2012, 07:59:04 AM
Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

well I expect Canon will have to do some studying of supply and demand curves soon. Once the initial demand for the 5D3 is fulfilled, they will have to lower the price quickly below the D800. I believe it will already happen in the pre-christmas season this year (2012). 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 15, 2012, 12:24:00 PM
And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them?

Um, honestly I don't think this would affect the price of the 5D3 much. The video is basically a free tack on. It's clear that Canon felt that they could not justify putting NO video (since the 5D2 had it), but it's totally nerfed below its capabilities(it's processor is capable of at least X2 the bitrate). The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Marsu42 on May 15, 2012, 01:38:17 PM
The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.

... or 5d3 with magic lantern :-)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: ScottyP on May 15, 2012, 02:43:50 PM
And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?

Kind of funny, but kind of true too.  Look at printers.  Most printer makers (presumably Canon too) sell printers cheap, at little or no profit.  They make their money on the ink cartridges over time.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 15, 2012, 03:17:45 PM
video is definitely here to stay and that is fine by me.
 I just do not want to have concessions - we pay a ton of money for this high end equipment and do our best to hone our skills yes it is a skill so any little thing that sacrifices any potential advancement is a big deal. If it comes down to it have 1 product optimized for video and 1 optimize for stills.
Perhaps in a way you could say I pinch pennies then again I am investing my money over the long term.
Having the option to use video would not even be there if the still photographers we're not driving the development/demand from the start.

 If it photographers were willing to say "fine whatever that's fine"  :-X then we'd be in a worse pickle right now - we have to keep looking for the highest quality best performing equipment that we can possibly get it and if we did not do not --- well then we would see fewer and fewer advancements........... :-\

Hey you know - call it what it is. I value the highest quality and best performance I can get it. So every little concession that I find is gonna make me squeal louder and louder.   :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 15, 2012, 03:44:43 PM
Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

You first. Removing video will shift the demand curve down. Equilibrium price will be lower. That being said, the video on the 5D3 isn't that great, so I'm not sure how big of a shift you'd actually get.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 15, 2012, 06:03:29 PM
well I expect Canon will have to do some studying of supply and demand curves soon. Once the initial demand for the 5D3 is fulfilled, they will have to lower the price quickly below the D800. I believe it will already happen in the pre-christmas season this year (2012).

Yes, of course -- in early production supply is limited, so they can price it higher. They will probably lower the price once they can make them fast enough to get them on the shelves.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 15, 2012, 06:08:14 PM
Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

You first. Removing video will shift the demand curve down. Equilibrium price will be lower. That being said, the video on the 5D3 isn't that great, so I'm not sure how big of a shift you'd actually get.

The supply curve is more or less flat, slightly downward sloping (more units shipped reduces price per unit). The reason that the supply curve behaves like this has already been discussed in this thread (it basically boils down to the fact that R&D costs don't depend on number of units shipped, and at least in the long run production capacity is not pushed anywhere near the limits)

The demand curve is of course downward sloping. So when you shift the demand curve up, the curves cross further along the x axis (= more sales). Because the supply curve is more or less flat (or slightly downward sloping), the new crossing point is at the same point or further down on the y axis (lower price). The reverse happens when you shift the demand curve down.

If the supply curve was steadily upward sloping (e.g. production capacity or availability of raw materials is limited), your analysis would work. Where it breaks down is that the supply curve does not go up steeply.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: DB on May 15, 2012, 08:02:48 PM
I think you should all stop speculating and/or guessing and read Canon Inc.'s latest annual report & accounts:

http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2011/report2011.pdf (http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2011/report2011.pdf)

Of $17.4 billion in Total Operating Expenses in FY 2011 a total of $4bn was spent on R&D (actually $3,946 million) across all 3 major divisions: Office, Consumer (DSLR incl.) and Industrial, but if you read p.48 on R&D, most was spent on non-Consumer stuff. Total 2011 R&D was 8.7% of Net Sales

Last year Canon spent > $1 billion on 'Advertising' alone. Further 'Selling, Marketing and Administrative' expenses totaled another $12 billion. Of the 3 major components of cost identified by Canon:- Labour, R&D, and Marketing/Advertising, Research & Development is less than one quarter.

R&D is dwarfed by Selling/Marketing/Advertising budget. Same goes for all major multinational corporations (e.g. 'Big-Pharma' spend one-tenth on R&D as they do on Marketing & Advertising).

The only mention on Consumer Business Unit R&D was the reduced need to make prototypes and the declining costs.

On the other hand, some 56% of Canon's US$4.8 billion 2011 Op profit came from Consumer (includes DSLR) business, yet that strategic business unit accounts for just 36% of sales. So selling Cameras is more profitable than selling other products in their other two divisions.

R&D has fallen in recent years e.g. in 2009 was 9.5% of Net Sales, the following year 2010 it fell to 8.5%.

Finally, read the key pages in the annual report, and you will see a clear trend. Fewer prototypes in Consumer Business, more R&D directed at Office & Industrial, boost the number of Marketing Subsidiaries (see page 101 - Marketing totally dominates, especially R&D), more products using overlapping technology (e.g. same sensor or same AF, same battery etc.), plus most of the sales growth in Non-Japan Asia and Emerging Markets (ie. not the Americas or Europe), so basic thrust is to sell more of existing technology to boost revenues.

Look at pages 51-52 where they discuss the apparent demand for higher MP in DSLR but instead emphasize the imperative to boost sales support in developing markets as the main priority etc ad nauseam ....

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 15, 2012, 08:02:59 PM
Elflord, you're thinking of perfect competition. At worst this is oligopoly. Equilibrium is where Marginal Cost=Marginal revenue: Draw down to the x-axis to get Q, up to the demand curve to get P.

If you don't believe me, here is a simple analytical example:

Assume supply is flat (just like you said): Cost(Q)=10Q

Assume original linear demand: P=100-Q

New linear demand (after adding video): P=200-Q

Equilibrium price in the first case is 45

Equilibrium price in the second case is 105

That's monopoly, but it will be true in all cases where firms have pricing power(AKA: not perfect competition)

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Richard8971 on May 16, 2012, 12:28:58 AM
Here is an easy way to explain how and WHY my camera loses performance/features BECAUSE of video.

Let's go and buy a car...

You have 10 grand to spend and car "X" is 10 grand.

Car "X" is perfect in every way exept the color, you want the color changed/upgraded.

The sales manager explains that they cannot upgrade the color because it has 2 grand worth of stereo equipment installed and the color you want costs 2 grand.

You do not wish to have said stereo and will NEVER use it. Sales manager wishes he could change it but ALL cars come with the 2 grand stereo outfit and because of it they cannot give you a better color.

So you accept this and try to live with the fact that you hate and will never use the stereo and are stuck wishing for a better color.

I WANT a better "color" for my camera. Get it? The R/D and electronics/programming for video takes AWAY from better/upgraded hardware/better features because those options cost money, nothing more, nothing less. Canon chose to spend part of my hard earned money on VIDEO and not better features/upgraded hardware, something I did not ask for.

I was VERY happy with my XTi and 40D that DID NOT have video. Awesome cameras. I would have bought my 7D and 5D2 even if they never shot video. And based on what I just posted, I believe that my newest cameras suffer in features/hardware because of video. Nothing personal but video COSTS MONEY! MY money that could have been spent on better features.

Again, Canon please leave the DSLR alone. Just make a good video camera and a good still camera. People WILL buy what they want/need.

D
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: wickidwombat on May 16, 2012, 01:35:05 AM
A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 16, 2012, 01:48:09 AM
A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before  :(
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: wickidwombat on May 16, 2012, 02:00:09 AM
A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before  :(


HaHa but there is no more smitey smitey anymore mwahahahahahaha :P
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 16, 2012, 02:13:41 AM
A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before  :(


HaHa but there is no more smitey smitey anymore mwahahahahahaha :P

 8) 8) 8) You mean I can be outspoken again without having to sit on the naughty chair  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: bycostello on May 16, 2012, 04:04:38 AM
total waste for me.... 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 16, 2012, 06:39:07 AM
Elflord, you're thinking of perfect competition. At worst this is oligopoly. Equilibrium is where Marginal Cost=Marginal revenue: Draw down to the x-axis to get Q, up to the demand curve to get P.

If you don't believe me, here is a simple analytical example:

Assume supply is flat (just like you said): Cost(Q)=10Q

Assume original linear demand: P=100-Q

New linear demand (after adding video): P=200-Q

Equilibrium price in the first case is 45

Equilibrium price in the second case is 105

That's monopoly, but it will be true in all cases where firms have pricing power(AKA: not perfect competition)

I'm not following this at all. If supply is flat  (not linear and certainly not linear with a slope of 10), then Cost(Q) = 10 (not 10Q)   So in the first example P = 100-Q, the curves cross where 10=100-Q, so Q = 90 and P = 10. Second example they cross at, P=200-Q = 10 = Cost(Q), so   Q=190 and P = 10 (more sales, same price)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 16, 2012, 06:44:56 AM
Bored now.

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AG on May 16, 2012, 06:47:52 AM
Bored now.

:)

I was bored 11 pages ago.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: elflord on May 16, 2012, 06:48:17 AM
I WANT a better "color" for my camera. Get it? The R/D and electronics/programming for video takes AWAY from better/upgraded hardware/better features because those options cost money, nothing more, nothing less. Canon chose to spend part of my hard earned money on VIDEO and not better features/upgraded hardware, something I did not ask for.

We've beaten this to death already. They do add to the fixed costs. It does not follow that they also add to the marginal cost per unit manufactured, or the price paid by the consumer.

You can have a camera without video, but it costs more, not less. If you really don't want to "waste money" on video, Leica, Hassleblad and others make some very good stills only cameras. They are not cheap but at least you won't "waste money on video"

Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Strobe the globe on May 16, 2012, 08:43:39 AM
Yes, I am sure that it is booting up the cost (probably very significantly) ... but in my opinion it's worth it. I like the flexibility of having one piece of hardware which I can use for two very different forms of visual creativity.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: AvTvM on May 16, 2012, 08:59:26 AM
The video capability isn't just software, it is hardware and it is part of the camera in a way that makes it impossible for you to elect for it to not be there.

so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

If car manufacturers are able to provide so many and profoundly different customer-selected configurations on so many different models, camera makers [with typically only 5 models of DSLRs in production!] should also be able to and forced by their customers to do so. 

Even iPhones and iPads from the "grandmaster of inflexible companies" [Apple] are offered in 6 different configigurations each [WiFi/UMTS, 3x memory size].

To get ANY DSLR in a stills-only and video-enabled version would be the bare minimum. With a similar price differential as offered by Apple on an iPhone WiFi vs. one with WiFi and UMTS [around 20% ... although the cost difference to Apple is probaly less than 5 dollars per unit, R&D included!].
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on May 16, 2012, 11:33:06 AM
I'm not following this at all. If supply is flat  (not linear and certainly not linear with a slope of 10), then Cost(Q) = 10 (not 10Q)   So in the first example P = 100-Q, the curves cross where 10=100-Q, so Q = 90 and P = 10. Second example they cross at, P=200-Q = 10 = Cost(Q), so   Q=190 and P = 10 (more sales, same price)

In this case, the supply curve and MARGINAL cost are the same. Cost(Q)=10Q implies MC=10.

So in the first case, you would maximize Total Revenue-Total Cost= P*Q-C(Q)=(100-Q)Q-10Q.

Taking derivative with respect to Q, we get 100-2Q-10=0, resulting in Q=45. Plugging Q=45 back into the demand we get P=55.

I taught intermediate microtheory for 3 years at UNC-Chapel Hill, so for the sake of my former students, I hope I haven't f**ked this up. 
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: kdsand on May 16, 2012, 01:19:42 PM
I'll be strait forward & to the point.


Power windows.
Remember the old crank windows?
Once electric became standard then cost of manual cranks started to increase.
Eventually the cost of providing manual exceeded the cost of electric on the assembly line.
4 a time the manufacturers continued to offer manual at a savings to consumers while in reality quietly taking a loss. :o
Why?
In order to keep the perception of high value electric as being a premium option consumer pay more because "hey look at this added value your receiving". ;)
Eventually even jeeps and pick up trucks came with power windows as standard equipment.
That doesn't stop the manufacturer from implying that it is an added benefit even today.  ::)

 So let us say the top speed has gone up a bit, the transmission is a hair better, power steering is now up to the industry standard and the engine has about 4% more torque.

So should we run out and buy the vehicle based on it having power windows, improved cruise control and 5 percent more foot room now? ??? Should we be focused on those power windows and thus be willing to pay a premium?  ???
 
I wanna be clear
 I am the only 1 that is right
:P
:P
Sorry.   :P
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Marsu42 on May 16, 2012, 01:29:16 PM
so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

But there's different hardware in 2wd vs 4wd cars. If looking for a comparison for camera bodies, it's pc cpus with different cores - for example AMD produces quadcores, but disables one or two cores to offer something for a budget while getting the most money from their premium customers (yes, I know that some of the less-then-four cpus have broken cores, but many do not and they can even be enabled by software).

I also think that video doesn't raise the manufacturing cost itsself that much, but just shifts the specs and r&d efforts. And it has been argued that a 5d3 is still cheap to other cine offerings with large sensors, so that's the origin of a potential price raise. But just like cpu manufacturers, I'd wish Canon would release a 5d3s w/o video and maybe another 5d3v with some still features disabled, say for $500-$750 less, purely for marketing reasons.

Well-off people or video users would still get the full 5d3, while Canon could generate more sales volume simply by some zero-cost firmware adjustments and different packaging. They could even sell a software upgrade :-)
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: DB on May 16, 2012, 03:32:15 PM
...
Look at pages 51-52 where they discuss the apparent demand for higher MP in DSLR but instead emphasize the imperative to boost sales support in developing markets as the main priority etc ad nauseam ....

Interesting. The 5D3 won't give them that boost in developing markets.

What their stated goal means is that they want to go into markets where they don't have a presence and capture new customers (sensible.) Those markets will need lower cost cameras.


Precisely.

Canon is boosting their marketing & sales efforts to sell millions of  EOS T4i/650D/1200D's in new markets. Video is a big selling point that persuades buyers in these markets to purchase Canon DSLR over Sony/Samsung point-n-shoot digital cameras (for a couple of hundred bucks more).

Do they really care if they only ever sell 50,000 5D3's or 100,000? It will not impact their bottom line that much. However, selling millions of plastic EF-S lenses (built by machines) rather than thousands of 'L' lenses that are hand assembled and polished (labour intensive, thus higher cost, so lower % margin), is where Canon sees their future revenue emanating from.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - just a couple of years ago, Canon sold their 50 millionth lens and 20 millionth camera body, but 50% of those total sales figures occurred in the previous 5-year period. So Canon sold more Camera/Lenses in the last half a dozen years than they did in their entire history prior to that.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: iaind on May 16, 2012, 03:38:41 PM
I'll be strait forward & to the point.

  • it is raising the cost of the bodies
  • it is unused by many

Power windows.
Remember the old crank windows?
Once electric became standard then cost of manual cranks started to increase.
Eventually the cost of providing manual exceeded the cost of electric on the assembly line.
4 a time the manufacturers continued to offer manual at a savings to consumers while in reality quietly taking a loss. :o
Why?
In order to keep the perception of high value electric as being a premium option consumer pay more because "hey look at this added value your receiving". ;)
Eventually even jeeps and pick up trucks came with power windows as standard equipment.
That doesn't stop the manufacturer from implying that it is an added benefit even today.  ::)

 So let us say the top speed has gone up a bit, the transmission is a hair better, power steering is now up to the industry standard and the engine has about 4% more torque.

So should we run out and buy the vehicle based on it having power windows, improved cruise control and 5 percent more foot room now? ??? Should we be focused on those power windows and thus be willing to pay a premium?  ???
 
I wanna be clear
 I am the only 1 that is right
:P
:P
Sorry.   :P


A true story

Original UK spec for Police Range Rovers was manual windows.

In time all Range Rovers had electric windows. It cost Land Rover money to convert Police Vehicles to manual windows.
Finally Land Rover got the spec changed to electric windows by offering to drop price.
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Neeneko on May 16, 2012, 04:01:35 PM
*sigh* this topic again?

Bottom line, unless one has access to Canon's internal marketing data and cost breakdowns including all the gantt charts, we simply do not know.

Adding video does increase the cost of research and production.  It also increases the sales volume which amortizes this increased cost.  We do not know which one outweighs the other, if video is essentially a freebe for still photographers or a case of marketing group think that is unnecessarily driving up costs.  Could be either.
Title: Discussion
Post by: Orangutan on May 16, 2012, 04:42:45 PM
Yes, we've beaten it to death; however I do want to commend the participants on keeping it mostly civil.  Though there have been some posts that were a bit condescending, it never degenerated into a flame war, nor did the condescension persist.

Yeah, seems there's a lot of disagreement, but well-done on keeping it civil!
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: Richard8971 on May 16, 2012, 11:42:45 PM
If you really don't want to "waste money" on video, Leica, Hassleblad and others make some very good stills only cameras. They are not cheap but at least you won't "waste money on video"

The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: cayenne on May 17, 2012, 01:11:23 PM


The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: wickidwombat on May 18, 2012, 03:03:26 AM


The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C

we can start with the AA filter and go from there....
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: briansquibb on May 18, 2012, 03:18:47 AM


The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C

we can start with the AA filter and go from there....

Video friendly sensor sizes
Title: Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
Post by: tron on May 23, 2012, 12:10:13 PM
At least they should offer a 5DmkIII version with no - just like Nikon- or at least a very weak AA filter and let us choose at own risk.