« on: May 27, 2012, 03:05:46 AM »
Well, at least I didn't invest in Kodak.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?
That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp . Nice to see a sunny day in GB!
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?
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.