April 16, 2014, 04:13:47 PM

Author Topic: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?  (Read 16739 times)

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

canon rumors FORUM


Terry Rogers

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2012, 09:42:13 PM »
I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.
Rebel T3i,  EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS, 430 EX II

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2012, 09:51:47 PM »
I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.

Maybe, I don't know.  If so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al certainly don't point that out in their promotional materials.  Kind of the opposite, actually..... :)
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

Mt Spokane Photography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 7701
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2012, 09:52:35 PM »
It more likely lowers the price, since sales of the 5D MK II were boosted by a huge amount due to the video, and more sales allows for reduced production costs (or more profit).  P&S have had video for many years. 
 
Video is here to stay, the sales of a body without video would be small indeed, because, even if you don't use it, resale would be very tough for a body that few want.

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2012, 12:13:54 AM »
Well, the price increases must be due to something.  The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it.  But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable.  You must pick one system and you buy into it with lenses.  Heavily.  Once you are in, it is very difficult and expensive to change trains.  Perhaps then it is the lack of robust competition. 
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

7enderbender

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2012, 12:14:07 AM »
Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.
5DII - 50L - 135L - 200 2.8L - 24-105 - 580EXII - 430EXII - FD 500/8 - AE1-p - bag full of FD lenses

kdsand

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Newt II a human stampede
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 12:24:46 AM »
I don't believe thus far that video is raising the cost of bodies.

I have some concern there will be an increased generalization of design.

The up coming 24 & 28mm 2.8 prime lenses with I.S. and the new silent focusing motors seem geared & aimed solely at improving video production. With these revised lenses there seems little to justify the increased price for photographers.
60D, t2i, Magic Lantern, Manfrotto, Joby, Domke, SanDisk and excetera excetera

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 12:24:46 AM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2012, 12:58:40 AM »
Well, the price increases must be due to something.  The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it.  But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable.

Right, and if you priced out comparable setups, Canon doesn't look so bad unless you were planning to use a $200- zoom on a $3000 body. The Nikon glass is generally more expensive. While the whiners have been whining about the latest Canon bodies, Canon has been quietly updating already first rate glass.

The exchange rate drives costs. Prices are driven by supply and demand, which is influenced but not directly related to costs. But increased costs do need to be absorbed somehow -- either through higher prices on the bodies, the glass, more sales on those, or more revenue through other channels. Otherwise it comes out of profits, but if too much comes out of profits, they become losses (e.g. Sony), and if the company lose too much, they eventually go out of business (Kodak, Pentax, etc)

I think you've got this kind of back to front -- it's not that Canon are abruptly becoming expensive, it's that Nikon are using aggressive pricing on their new bodies to increase their market share (at the expense of Canon). They are probably counting on their D800 buyers to also go out and buy (for example) their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses (which are more expensive than the Canon versions)

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2012, 01:04:34 AM »

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

You could always go out and buy a Leica, then you wouldn't have to feel that you'd wasted your money on video.

Which video features of the 5DII do you find detrimental to your stills shooting ?

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2012, 01:21:04 AM »
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

RC

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2012, 01:47:06 AM »
Although I don't care about video and would rather see that technology and the cost of it applied toward still functions and technology, I'll bet adding two lines of bodies (ie 5D3 with and without video) would cost canon more to produce thus those costs being passed onto us consumers. 

Multiple production lines, some parts would be different, two sets of firmware, marketing costs, packaging, and so on would all have to be accounted for. 

I'm not a production expert and maybe im wrong, but I'm betting it is more cost effective and efficient having just one body with all features.   

PeterJ

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2012, 02:02:59 AM »
It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold
Maybe, Mt Spokane makes a good point though about increased sales of the same hardware for video pushing up volumes and dropping costs. It wouldn't really surprise me if the two things largely offset each other and it ends up being pretty much zero added cost for still photographers.

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2012, 02:15:59 AM »
Sorry but it is hard to accept that the video capability is free.   Whether it is hardware of software or (probably) both, they market it as a selling point, so it must cost something.

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2012, 02:15:59 AM »

Cornershot

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2012, 02:45:05 AM »
Other than adding a mic, I doubt it adds significantly to the price. You can add Magic Lantern to a 50D which will add video function to a camera that was never offered with it. Besides, many professional still photographers use the video capability because it's often requested by clients. All of the editorial photographers that I've worked with do some video as well as stills when covering news and events.

kdsand

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Newt II a human stampede
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2012, 02:52:01 AM »
It just goes back to the old what the market will bare. Perhaps you could reason an opposite extreme = socialist state that could produce 1 product line dirt cheap. I'm glad that's not the case here  ;).
 Then again if you reason that a company must charge as much as they possibly can for their product. Then likewise you must reason that consumers must endeavor to pay as little as possible. We must after all keep the universe in balance.
60D, t2i, Magic Lantern, Manfrotto, Joby, Domke, SanDisk and excetera excetera

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2012, 02:52:01 AM »