Rumors > EOS Bodies
Canon did everything it could in 5D3
tomscott:
--- Quote from: RunAndGun on May 01, 2012, 12:11:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: tomscott on May 01, 2012, 11:51:00 AM ---
In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure I would consider a COMPLETELY new AF system that's only on TWO cameras "used parts", especially when it beat the camera it was "taken" from to market. How many people would have loved to have had the "used" AF system out of the 1DsMKIII in the 5DMKII? Hell, I know I would have. Almost EVERY manufacturer shares parts across products. Go look at almost any brand of vehicle in different models and you'll see things like steering wheels, control knobs, door handles and engines being used across multiple platforms.
--- End quote ---
You misinterpret what I mean, I meant that the AF wasn't designed specifically for the 5D MKIII it was designed for the 1DX and it has borrowed it. Which is fine. What I was meaning was the R&D isnt extreme because they have recycled tech, the AF is amazing and I welcome it but the overall point being the tech already existed yet we pay an extra £1000 premium over the 5D MKII. There is a lot of profit in this camera for Canon because it is not unique tech.
LifeAfter:
Maybe they did what they could technically,
BUt NOT financially- THE PRICE, they could/can do a loooot better
neuroanatomist:
--- Quote from: AvTvM on May 02, 2012, 07:12:48 AM ---Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are costing them market share.
--- End quote ---
Why do people make statements like this? What makes you think it is costing them market share, and more importantly, do you have any data to back that up? The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years. So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.
peederj:
What generally happens with companies employing crippleware strategies is the competition catches up without crippling. And all the opinion leaders who learned enough about the systems to identify the crippling loudly proclaim the competitive entrant and make a lot of noise in that direction. The lumbering giant then finally decripples (usually doesn't price slash, that would humiliate the faithful) thinking it was time to play the ace they had been holding back. At that point, we enter a world like that of cars: the giant may still have a few advantages left from economies of scale and depth of staff, but the upstarts are all established and legit and the choice becomes a matter of politics, style, and price. The giant slowly erodes in stature as they are too slow to respond to the fickleness of an open market.
And it all could have been avoided with the tolerance of a little cannibalism. The giant could have completely prevented the establishment of competition and maintained an effective monopoly indefinitely. Which may have been worse for the customer in the long run. Indeed, the staff themselves may be crippling their own employer, knowing that creating an opening for competitors to flourish will provide for their own job security and negotiation power.
Neeneko:
--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on May 02, 2012, 09:18:42 AM ---Why do people make statements like this? What makes you think it is costing them market share, and moreimportantly, do you have any data to back that up? The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years. So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.
--- End quote ---
That was my thought....
I agreed with the first part, and am often annoyed by Canon's approach to the market. However I full admit that it has been very profitable for them. The segment I am part of is an edge case, I get grumpy that only niche players with small capacity and high prices cater to it, and I wish companies with the volume to bring prices down would pay more attention to us.... so I am often frustrated that companies like Canon will not even try..... but I acknowledge that their groove has worked for them.
Though there is probably market that they COULD exploit that they currently are not. They have been heavily focusing on a few areas and, if not for glass investment and brand loyalty they probably would be loosing a lot more people. That will probably be the real risk to them from the mirrorless segment... once it gets fleshed out better and has a wider range of bodies including high end ones, the ability to put any glass on them could really start hurting Canon.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version