5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[Picsfor]

I do not see them lowering the price of the mkII in order to place the mkIII at the original price......

No, i see the price of the 5D2 being lowered to below £1500, maybe as low as £1300.
Why? Well, the 5D2 production line owes Canon absolutely nothing. Anything it is getting now is pure profit over and above. So, if it is still a crowd pleaser, why get rid of it?
How many times have we read people say 'they'd like a 5D2 but can only afford a 7d?'
And if the 5D3 sits around the £2200 mark on release, that is a huge extra outlay over a £1300 5D2. A win win all round for Canon. And once Canon get people onto FF, they then encourage the purchase of L lenses (even if it is the cheaper end of 17-40 f4L, 24-105 f4 ISL and 70-200 f4 ISL), not to mention external flash guns!

Almost every one wins 

[awinphoto]

I do not see them lowering the price of the mkII in order to place the mkIII at the original price......

No, i see the price of the 5D2 being lowered to below £1500, maybe as low as £1300.
Why? Well, the 5D2 production line owes Canon absolutely nothing. Anything it is getting now is pure profit over and above. So, if it is still a crowd pleaser, why get rid of it?
How many times have we read people say 'they'd like a 5D2 but can only afford a 7d?'
And if the 5D3 sits around the £2200 mark on release, that is a huge extra outlay over a £1300 5D2. A win win all round for Canon. And once Canon get people onto FF, they then encourage the purchase of L lenses (even if it is the cheaper end of 17-40 f4L, 24-105 f4 ISL and 70-200 f4 ISL), not to mention external flash guns!

Almost every one wins 

I could see this... finally a full frame is within everyones grasp, but there will be PLENTY of separation between the 2 and 3 in terms of camera quality

[unfocused]

A win win all round for Canon.

Unless they actually feel the need to turn a profit.

Well, the 5D2 production line owes Canon absolutely nothing. Anything it is getting now is pure profit over and above.

Unless it actually costs something to produce camera bodies, sensors and electronics.

How many times have we read people say 'they'd like a 5D2 but can only afford a 7d?'

About as often as people say they would like a BMW, but can only afford a Hyundai.

Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?

[wtlloyd]

5d2 is coming to an end, or Canon would never have dumped inventory the way they did in the USA this last December.

Doesn't matter if the tooling is paid for, it still costs to run production lines.

Consumers aren't total idiots about technology, and crazy house money is spent and gone forever. Don't expect swarms of average people to buy a $3K FF 30+ megapixel camera.

There WILL be massive internet P&M about the new Nikons when it's realized that that sensor resolution is not a playground for the clueless.

[Neeneko]

Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?

Well, for starters, only Canon has the 5D2.
Partly though we are talking about an oligopoly, not a true free market.  The barrier to entry in this industry is so high that there are only a few players, and all of them go by about the same playbook; charge what the market will bare with a combination of low cost entry level equipment and premium priced professional equipment, even though the manufacturing costs are pretty close across the board.  They charge based off how much the bodies are worth, not on how much they cost to make.

[unfocused]

Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?

Well, for starters, only Canon has the 5D2.
Partly though we are talking about an oligopoly, not a true free market.  The barrier to entry in this industry is so high that there are only a few players, and all of them go by about the same playbook; charge what the market will bare with a combination of low cost entry level equipment and premium priced professional equipment, even though the manufacturing costs are pretty close across the board.  They charge based off how much the bodies are worth, not on how much they cost to make.

Well, that makes my point. You are saying they "could" but "won't" I suggested they "can't," but regardless of the reason, it isn't happening and isn't likely to happen.

[wtlloyd]

No.

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.

Well, for starters, only Canon has the 5D2.
Partly though we are talking about an oligopoly, not a true free market.  The barrier to entry in this industry is so high that there are only a few players, and all of them go by about the same playbook; charge what the market will bare with a combination of low cost entry level equipment and premium priced professional equipment, even though the manufacturing costs are pretty close across the board.  They charge based off how much the bodies are worth, not on how much they cost to make.

[Neeneko]

Well, that makes my point. You are saying they "could" but "won't" I suggested they "can't," but regardless of the reason, it isn't happening and isn't likely to happen.

I agree that it seems unlikely that they would keep the 5D2 around at a lower price point since they will probably just retool those assembly lines for other higher margin bodies.

Though I would not be too surprised if they (at some point) introduced an 'entry level' FF body that sits a little lower then the current 5D2 price point.  Though even that I would not bet money on since they would then be competing with the used market for their own products, esp since the proposed 5D3 is not really that huge of an upgrade so 5D2s will probably retain a lot of resale value.

Oddly enough, I am personally hoping whatever they come up with pushes the used prices down a bit.  I keep watching the 1Ds2 used market, but discounted 52Ds would be pretty enticing... sadly I hold little hope of the 1DX pushing 1Ds3s down into my price point....

[neuroanatomist]

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true.  The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

[Neeneko]

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true.  The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size).  The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.

[wtlloyd]

I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.

In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true.  The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

[psolberg]

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

I agree, but do keep in mind that for the 1D IV, ISO 102400 is the H3 setting, and the top native (non-expanded) ISO for the 1D IV is ISO 12800, vs. ISO 51200 for the 1D X.

While these super high ISO values are better than nothing, nobody considers them any good for day to day use. I think it will be another generation before anything over ISO 51200 are nothing more than a numbers game that these manufacturers like to play. Personally I couldn't care less. It's like upgrading your car to do 150mph when your tires are rated to 120mph.  pointless.

I don't understand how do you guys see the X has high MP when the 1DX is NOT.

agreed. look at the G1X. high MP? IMO X doesn't stand for anything unlike with nikon where the X has a very specific meaning. It is just a marketing tool. 

Having a lower MP number regardless of actual performance will be competitive towards a large group of users. I think many are turned off by having to deal with 36 megapixel files. In other words, lower MP can be a feature in itself, especially since D800 lacks sRAW and mRAW modes.

this was what was said about the 12MP nikon models compared to big 20MP (at the time) models. but at the end of the day it didn't matter because we're not talking about a 10x jump but a modest jump. Cards are always cheaper, pcs are always faster, 36MP is the new 20MP and 20MP is the new 12MP. less MP itself is not a feature. What is a feature is that having less MP allows for faster fps and less noise. I don't see high MP as a bad thing either, but I think canon is wise to differentiate themselves with a low MP body this time.

I agree. Buying a D800 also means investing in HDD's or NAS...

If you were runing out of room anytimes soon with 20MP files, the fact of the matter is that 36MP won't matter. Likewise if you had room to spare, 36MP won't push you over all that much faster. you fire that 5DIII at 7fps a lot and you'll probably end up needing more room

[neuroanatomist]

I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.

In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.

I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies.  I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still).  There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true.  The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size).  The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.

Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR).  Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them. 

I work in the pharmaceutical industry - a small pharma company recently got approval for a drug that is a very effective treatment for cystic fibrosis, for the 5% of the patient population with a particular form of the disease.  The whole CF population is small, and 5% of that means a very small market for this drug.  Chemically, the molecule is pretty simple, and easy to synthesize.  The per-pill production costs are not significantly different from Tylenol or an over-the-counter antihistamine.   A year's worth of Tylenol would cost you about $30.  A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000. 

[AshtonNekolah]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera.  Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

Nice idea but i never saw a real budget ff camera yet, i guess that's why there are crop's, even when i was shopping for one i notices its either you spend the money on one now or never, the mark2 prices will fall more so that will be a good buy. I wish they kept the same battery in these cameras thou. but then again more demands more power or less.

[Orangutan]

  A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.

And if they could find a way to make it affordable to the entire 5%, they'd earn themselves some major karma.