Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)

« on: May 03, 2012, 10:22:57 AM »

I don't think Canon planned to release the 5D MkIII as it exists today. I think Canon intended to put a much higher MP, lower noise sensor with greater DR in it, but it wasn't ready in time. This is all pure conjecture.

I think Canon was fully aware of the Sony sensor and Nikon's plans, and physics and electronics being what they are, was able to produce a sensor equal to the one in the D800 using Canon technology. There's nothing revolutionary about the Sony/D800 sensor. But I don't think Canon could get it produced in the quantities they needed.

I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.

This left Cannon with some choices:
- Release no update to the 5D MkII, already 3+ years old until the sensor was ready, and in so doing, appear to cede that market segment to Nikon.
- Put the top of the line 1D series sensor in the MkIII - an improvement, but the only way to maintain the price point would be to take a loss/break even on every body.
- Put a slightly tweaked MkII sensor back into the MkIII along with the other planned feature upgrades and basically mark time until the new sensor was ready.

I think they took the last option - issuing a minor upgrade so as not to be seen abandoning the market segment to Nikon.

Nikon took advantage of the situation by knocking down the price, and I think that, more than anything else caught Canon off guard. Canon would do well to take a price cut on the MkIII.

Why did Sony and Nikon succeed with the new sensor where Canon did not?

I'm not so sure they did.  First, I think Nikon may be creaming the sensor production - paying a premium to Sony for the very best of each run.  They don't need that many, since the D800 is a relatively expensive, low volume camera.

A company Sony's size may be able to afford production runs 100x or 1000x larger than Canon. Their yield of the very best sensors may be no better than Canon, but they may have buyers for the lesser sensors - other camera makers and other Sony models that may be happy with fewer pixels, more noise, lower DR or even, via trimming, smaller sensors.

Or Sony can afford to take a loss on initial production runs, knowing everything will work out in the near future. Sony did this with the PS 1 and PS 2 gaming processors.

It could also be that Canon's sensor production facilities for this model were in Thailand, were flooded out, and the replacement factories are not fully on line yet or tweaked for higher yields.

I think Canon's next full frame camera will be very informative. If it is in the  18-24 MP range, but retails near the 7D, then I would bet that these are based on the same sensor that was originally planned for the 5DMkIII, but represent the lesser quality production yields.  (18-24 usable low noise, high DR pixels vs 36-45)

I bet that within a year, Canon updates the 5D MkIII type camera with a much higher MP count, lower noise, higher DR sensor. They may not call it the 5D, but it will be what they had originally planned for the MkIII.

62

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 06:43:23 PM »

The D800 represents a reversal in the megapixel situation with Nikon surpassing Canon, and no change in the DR situation, with Nikon still out front.  How else could Canon interpret that?  Canon will assume the problem is MP, revert to their former more-is-better strategy, and we'll see a high MP body with no greater (or perhaps even less) DR.

I wish that Canon would take up the challenge and push past Nikon in MP count, DR and noise, but I agree with you - Canon will probabley stick to the MP count. It's easier.

Did you account for the fact that Canon doesn't count dollars to determine profit, but that they count yen instead?  That means exchange rates are a huge factor in pricing (the strong yen accounts for much of the recent price hikes, for both Canon and Nikon), and also the ever-shifting landscape of trade tariffs, luxury goods import duties, etc., play a major role (which is why Canon gear appears to cost more in the EU, on a dollar for euro comparison).

Nope, didn't consider it at all, as it is irrelevant. I don't care what the camera costs to produce or how much profit Canon makes. I only know what Canon chooses to charge me in dollars and how that stacks up to the previous version and the competition.

The absolute price isn't an issue for me in this case. At issue is whether the Mk3 offers enough features to justify the price of the upgrade compared to what is possible (Nikon) and what Canon has offered in the past (Mk2). It does not.

If the Mk3 offered the same MP, DR, and low noise as the current tech leader, Nikon, the Mk3 would be worth the upgrade. I'll wait until what Canon is offering @$3500 is more in line with what is possible, the D800 @ $3000.

If you want the camera, you pay the cost.  If the cost is too high, you don't buy the camera.  I guess on a personal level, it's pretty simple after all.

That about sums it up.

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 05:05:08 PM »

Wow, there are just so many misassumptions there that I'm not even sure where to begin.  You don't, by any chance, do cost analyses for the US government, do you?   

No I don't :-). But I have been buying and using the Canon EOS system for over 20 years. I still own several EOS film cameras, and I can match them just about feature for feature with their their digital counterparts.  Build quality, lens mount quality, sealing, shutter MTF, % VF, auto-focus points, metering, etc.

I've come to know how much of a price increase there was when Canon "improved weather sealing", "added metering modes", "increased VF %" or "increased the number or AF points" between one model year and the next. Answer: essentially $0.

I also know what each of the film cameras cost new, and in many cases, what it cost to have all or parts of the film transport replaced or repaired. I've been pretty hard on some of these cameras.

So when I look at a Canon digital camera, I also look at it's nearest film sibling.  The difference in price between the two, minus the retail parts cost of replacing the film transport, is the "digital premium" Canon is charging me for that camera.  I am not talking about what it costs Canon to make the camera. I don't know and I don't care. I am only concerned with what Canon is charging me for the digital features.

So if the Canon EOS 3 ($800 new) and the 5MkIII ($3500 new) are nearly identical in build and features. And I was charged $275 in parts for replacing a destroyed film transport, then retail price of the non-digital parts of and EOS 3 type body I can assume is $500. NOT what it cost Canon, but what they are charging me for it.

Likewise, if an EOS 3 body is like a 5MkIII body, then the digital premium - what Canon is charging me for the sensors, chips and software - on the 5 MkIII is $3000. ($3500-$500)

Do the same analysis for  the Nikon D800. It has a film sibling that sold for around 800-900. Assume the film transport price is the same. The Nikon digital premium is $2500, for 36 MP and near medium format performance.

So the question for me becomes, is that $3000 Canon digital premium worth it. My answer, in this case, is no, not when compared to the MkII and not when compared to the value offered by Nikon.

The analysis would be just as valid if I took off nothing for the film transport. The digital premium would still be there, and Canon would still be offering less value than Nikon, and an insignificant improvement over the MkII

64

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 03:46:23 PM »

61 AF points vs 9...  yep, modest upgrade...  much better weather sealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay...  100% VF, modest, sure why not...

That's all 15 year old Canon technology. Even my EOS 3 had 45 AF points, weather sealing and 97% VF.

At this point in manufacturing, those upgrades cost nothing.

From Wikipedia:
"The EOS-3 introduced the 45-point autofocus system later used in the EOS-1v, EOS-1D and subsequent Canon professional SLRs. It was the last camera outside the 1-series, either film or digital, to receive Canon's top-of-the-line AF system until the March 2012 announcement of the EOS 5D Mark III.[2]"

65

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 03:38:58 PM »

I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.

True. But there's no business sense in spending the $500 more if it offers no improvement. I can a MkII, or postpone replacement. Now if it offered all the perks of the D800 (if the reviews are to be believed, I'd almost never need to rent medium format gear)  then yes,  it would make good business sense to run out and buy it.

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 03:33:01 PM »

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000,  a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen

Since when is the D800 only $2500?  Also, why does everyone insist on thinking that the cost of materials in a product means bugger all in terms of the retail pricing?!? 

I think that I was not clear. I was referring to the retail price of the "digital guts". Based on a Canon film body of similar build quality, I estimated the retail price for the non-digital parts to be $500. Thus, if the camera retails for $3500, then the sensor digital  contribution to the price is $3000. And since software and chip speed improvements are essentially zero cost upgrades (Moore's Law), this $3000 is all sensor.

True, the  retail cost somewhat independent of manufacturing cost, but we can use past pricing trends to estimate how much of a digital premium Canon is charging for a camera a particular build quality. In this case, $3000.

No, that's not what it costs Canon, but it is what Canon is charging us for the technology. I don't think it is worth it, given that it is insignificant improvement over the previous generation.

Nikon, on the other hand, is packing a lot more value into its digital premium ($3000-$500=$2500).

67

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

« on: May 01, 2012, 03:10:58 PM »

I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600  are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

The rest of the new features? Modest software changes. A slightly updated processing chip, which should cost less to make. A few more AF points - technology which Canon perfected 15 years ago and can be added to any camera at essentially zero cost. In other words, a non upgrade.

I compare the 5MkII/III to the old Canon EOS 3 in terms of build quality and non-digital features. Rugged, a step below the top line, spot metering and lots of AF points. That camera sold for about $800 new. Drop the analog guts - film transport, etc - and you're left with say $500 worth of camera. 

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000,  a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen.

The 5mk3 is a bad deal and a pointless upgrade.

I don't think anyone who has a significant investment in L glass will be walking away from Canon anytime soon. I won't. But I will skip the MkIII and wait to see what they do next. Now if Canon blows it again in 2013 and 2014, then I'll switch.

68

EOS Bodies / Re: Your wishlist for your next body...

« on: September 19, 2011, 03:56:27 PM »

Eye Movement Focusing!

It wasn't a very popular feature, but I really miss it from my EOS 3 and Elan 7. It was fast, precise, and allowed me to take multiple spot readings without dials.