canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 10:32:24 AM

Title: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
To get a rough idea, whether & what market potential video-disabled Canon EOS DSLR's might have.

Thanks @all taking part in this poll!
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: PhilDrinkwater on May 14, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
Interesting question. I said "no" :)
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: briansquibb on May 14, 2012, 10:47:49 AM
It is a stupid question as it makes no sense to just disable a function -

Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 14, 2012, 11:26:28 AM
I voted NO.

But I would buy a video disabled camera at half the price if ML were able to hack it and get the video back.

What is this obsession about video.  It's all getting a bit silly.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: awinphoto on May 14, 2012, 11:53:14 AM
I will admit I dont shoot video a lot on my DSLR's...  maybe really tried to get something decent a handful of times in the last 2-3 years...  BUT, i realize there is potential there for my clients and i'm working to try to integrate it more in my packages and also frankly, if it can do it, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. 
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: preppyak on May 14, 2012, 12:01:58 PM
Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"
But the question should be grounded in reality. Canon couldn't sell that camera at $2500 if they have to R&D a new sensor, new focus system, etc; and they knew the market was smaller than the original market that put the 5dIII at $3500. I mean, sure, I'd GLADLY take my dream camera at half the reasonable market price, but it has no practical application as a poll, everyone would answer yes to getting their dreams.

The question is basically, how much less would the camera have to cost for video not being included to be worth it. I think that's a fair question...and one that gets at how much people actually value video features
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 12:09:57 PM
of course we could go even further and ask for "fully customer-configurable cameras" - at least to such a degree we have become used to "customize" cars and PCs ... at the minimum having a choice between a number of different configurations/versions - eg. with/without Video, sensor resolution, Af-system, etc. 

Currently foto gear makers product modularity really equals Henry Ford's model-T policy 100 years ago ...  "you can have it any color, as long as its black". :-)

Today you can order a small car eg. a BMW Mini with a very powerful engine and most of the very same hi-end features available in large, hi-end, "flagship model" cars  ...  if you want and are willing to pay for them. But we will not  be forced to buy a 7-series BMW just becaus we would like to have a 200hp engine, Xenon headlights and decent A/C in a car.

It's about time photo gear makers (and the consumer electronics guys in general!) get off their high horse an start offering modular cameras with features to be selected by purchasers!
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: unfocused on May 14, 2012, 01:46:37 PM
This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:

Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?

Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.

If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: iaind on May 14, 2012, 02:02:53 PM
This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:

Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?

Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.


While I seldom use video The costs in removing video from camera and marketing as separate model would exceed cost ao std video enabled camera.

Nikon removed AA filter from D800 and charge a premium

If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: K-amps on May 14, 2012, 03:07:40 PM
of course we could go even further and ask for "fully customer-configurable cameras" - at least to such a degree we have become used to "customize" cars and PCs ... at the minimum having a choice between a number of different configurations/versions - eg. with/without Video, sensor resolution, Af-system, etc. 

Currently foto gear makers product modularity really equals Henry Ford's model-T policy 100 years ago ...  "you can have it any color, as long as its black". :-)

Today you can order a small car eg. a BMW Mini with a very powerful engine and most of the very same hi-end features available in large, hi-end, "flagship model" cars  ...  if you want and are willing to pay for them. But we will not  be forced to buy a 7-series BMW just becaus we would like to have a 200hp engine, Xenon headlights and decent A/C in a car.

It's about time photo gear makers (and the consumer electronics guys in general!) get off their high horse an start offering modular cameras with features to be selected by purchasers!

You my friend are 100% on the money!
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: RuneL on May 14, 2012, 03:12:58 PM
of course we could go even further and ask for "fully customer-configurable cameras" - at least to such a degree we have become used to "customize" cars and PCs ... at the minimum having a choice between a number of different configurations/versions - eg. with/without Video, sensor resolution, Af-system, etc. 

Currently foto gear makers product modularity really equals Henry Ford's model-T policy 100 years ago ...  "you can have it any color, as long as its black". :-)

Today you can order a small car eg. a BMW Mini with a very powerful engine and most of the very same hi-end features available in large, hi-end, "flagship model" cars  ...  if you want and are willing to pay for them. But we will not  be forced to buy a 7-series BMW just becaus we would like to have a 200hp engine, Xenon headlights and decent A/C in a car.

It's about time photo gear makers (and the consumer electronics guys in general!) get off their high horse an start offering modular cameras with features to be selected by purchasers!

It's simpler installing a more powerful engine, adequate suspension, tires  and screwing in some more gadgets in a car than making a 1D IV modular, for instance, also the competition in automotive is much more fierce. If you want something fully customizable get a MF camera and a digiback, you can shoot film or digi or whatever and change prisms with or with out metering. A DSLR is small, and the prices, I'm almost positive, would skyrocket, if you could select stuff like AF and what not.
I'm not saying it's a dumb idea, but I don't think it's particularly easy to do :)
Anyway, you DO have the option to not get the flagship model.
There is the 7D that sort of does some of what the 1D does. And the most powerful and optional extra upgraded Mini does not come even close to a 7-series :)

The sensor however, that would be neat, if you could decide on a FF 25MP sensor, FF 16MP, Crop etc etc. But again - production becomes more complicated, prices rise, blah blah blah.   
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: distant.star on May 14, 2012, 03:37:00 PM
.
I'm with Brian; I think it's a pointless question.

I will buy any camera Canon sells that meets my needs as a photographer, as long as I believe the price is reasonable and warranted.  For example, I would buy a 5D3 today if it were priced at $3K US. They could have a flower pot attached to the side of it for all I care.

All you folks living in the fantasyland of what you would do if you ran Canon, Inc. would be better served playing computer games -- at least there you can experience some measurable progress.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: DB on May 14, 2012, 03:56:51 PM
It is a stupid question as it makes no sense to just disable a function -

Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"

I would just like to add the following point to this comment (turning it 180-degrees): do you not think that the inclusion of HD video in all new digital DSLR's increases overall demand, thereby allowing manufacturers to make and sell more units, thus lowering the price point for everyone?
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: K-amps on May 14, 2012, 04:45:02 PM
Another option in the poll could be: If Video were disabled and the AA filter was removed as a consequence, you buy a 5d3e for $2700 ?  My response would be a resounding yes!
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: TrumpetPower! on May 14, 2012, 04:46:30 PM
With video comes live view and faster framerates, and possibly even more better goodies for the stills market. I may never shoot any video at all, but that doesn't mean that the cameras aren't better still cameras for the fact that they have video capabilities.

Plus, if they've got good video, more people will buy them and thus bring down the price.

b&
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: AmbientLight on May 14, 2012, 05:11:31 PM
This is quite an interesting poll. I am shooting stills mostly, so I sympathize to some extend with the original poster, but I tend to surprise myself using video more and more often, so there is something I would miss in a stills-only body, even if the rest were the same. This alone was the reason I voted no.

What benefit would a still-only camera provide over a camera providing both stills and video? It is obvious (at least) to me that video features do not get into the way of shooting stills. It is even confusing for me to think that there would be an issue with the way Canon handles both areas as part of one product. So if video would be disabled and video-side-effect-features like live-view are still useable, where would be the point to disable video?  :o Maybe in the future given even more processing power we will even benefit from some advanced video autofocus features, so there may be more nice video-side-effect-features in store for us.

Add to this the arguments by TrumpetPower!, which I find to be quite valid, so here's my +1 on that post.

Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: awinphoto on May 14, 2012, 05:38:26 PM
People have been saying that Canon "cripples" cameras as is and leaves features off to differentiate pricing... I think if they had a video disabled camera, it would be one of those "crippled" things....  Unless they did something to bring up the value and specs of the stills only, but then the video camera would almost need the same or there will be the same discontent with the 5d2 crowd when the 7d came out with the superior feature set. 
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: Axilrod on May 14, 2012, 05:38:43 PM
As far as I know the added cost for video is minimal (on the 5DII it sounded like something they added at the last minute).  Now I'm sure the few added video features of the 5DIII added a little to the cost, but not sure how much losing those features would save you price-wise. 

Now I would buy a 1DC if they stripped the STILL features from it (12fps/61pt AF) and lowered the price to about $8k.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: ScottyP on May 14, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
Video is just one feature. 

I DON'T expect them to sell a no-video body for LESS MONEY. 

Instead of a lower price, I DO think they could offer a couple of small OTHER FEATURES to replace video, but still charge the SAME MONEY.

If you removed video, but replaced it with something appealing borrowed from a slightly higher-end model body I would take that, yes.  Just pick one feature to add; microfocus adjustment, better weatherproofing, slightly better AF, etc..
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: ScottyP on May 14, 2012, 06:26:55 PM
This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:

Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?

Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.

If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.

You have a sneering tone.  You had the same sneering tone in the other thread.  Thank you ever so much for "explaining it" to everyone.  You even explained it to everyone more than once, and we should be grateful.  Sorry it is hard for everyone to "wrap their heads around" the "facts" which you have been granted from up on high.  Perhaps if you printed your facts on some stone tablets and gave them to everyone, they would finally get the reverent acceptance they deserve.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: briansquibb on May 14, 2012, 06:31:46 PM
Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"
But the question should be grounded in reality. Canon couldn't sell that camera at $2500 if they have to R&D a new sensor, new focus system, etc; and they knew the market was smaller than the original market that put the 5dIII at $3500. I mean, sure, I'd GLADLY take my dream camera at half the reasonable market price, but it has no practical application as a poll, everyone would answer yes to getting their dreams.



So that is a 7D with an uprated sensor - $2500 sounds eminately possible if the design was simplified at conception

The OP did not mention a reduced price so that argument is irrelevant

I believe the question should be modified to be: 

Quote
would you buy a optimised still camera without video

If the answer is a resounding yes - then perhaps a second question might be asked

Quote
How much would you be prepared to pay
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: Quasimodo on May 14, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
From a marketing point of view I think the video capabilities are a product of the 90's convergence 'ideology'. I think that both the still and videocapabilities are brilliant. However, IMHO, there seems to be two different kinds of people who buy those cameras for different purposes. I know several people who bought the 5D II for filmproduction (and they never use it for stills, but were so impressed with its videocapabilities at the low price point. On the other hand, most of my friends, myself included only use the camera for stills. Speaking only for myself, the reason I do not shoot video with it (the 5D II) is because I am not good enough, and the lack of AF makes it hard, given that you must know where people are going to move and be positioned - to be able to use any fun apertures... I would be happy to have video capabilities if they could provide me with AF, thus giving me the opportunity to use all my expensive glass for other than stills.
Title: Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
Post by: AvTvM on May 14, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
I believe the question should be modified to be: 
Quote
would you buy a optimised still camera without video
If the answer is a resounding yes - then perhaps a second question might be asked
Quote
How much would you be prepared to pay

I did not want to ask for specific price points for specific levels of cameras/feature sets. 

What I am interested in is to get an idea, how much DSLR-purhcasers appreciate video capability. At current it seems, they would be prepared to pay  quite a bit more for a video enabled camera than for a stills-only camera. But lets see, how the poll continues. It will be open for 7 days.

I do believe Canon should be able to sell a video-only cam with a large sensor and 5d3 video capabilities for USD/€ 2000. After all, they could leavy off the entire mirror box, mirror+submirror assembly, entire phase-AF system, large prism, mechanical shutter unit, optical viewfinder ... all of this is not neede for video. Actually it is  rather in the way of an ergonomical video cam.  All of these items are fairly expensive in terms of production cost ... both parts and labor - with a lot of small-tolerance fitting and adjustments. A 5D3 without these items might really be possible for 2k [given Nikon's D800 price point for the hybrid stills/video D800]. 

Canon, Nikon and even more so Sony (with the SLT design that defintiely compromises stills capture in a big way!) are all bundling video plus stills in DSLR-Cameras and are not offering purchasers a choice of
a) optimized for stills only  [@ somewhat lower price, since savings are not so huge]
b) optimized for video only [@ substantailly lower price]
c) compromised - video and stills [@ current price or even more, since many purchasers seem willing to pay]
but only offer c)
... trying to push "convergence".
To me, that would really mak sense, if those cameras were not digital but analog and require film, that would also be sold by the camera manufacturer. Then, pushing the user bnase towards a more film-hungry video would sound like a great marketing strategy. But for all I know Canon and Nikon are not producing digital media. Sony is, but only at a small(er) scale, after its proprietary memory stick desaster utterly failed.