Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

[briansquibb]

Worth = the price you are prepared to pay

Value  = the price you are prepared to pay vs the market value

[illogict]

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen: the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.

That's because they're completely different products! Lens are to be expected to stay to the same price over large amounts of time, whereas printers, and low-end DSLRs are only on the market for a (low) fixed amount of time and discontinued. Moreover, they could even almost be sold at a loss as that would be tallied on the accessories (ink and lenses, respectively).

And, on Canon's point of view (accounts in Yen, again), the 5D mk3 cost less for the US consumer than the 5D mk2: 5D2 (+24-105) list price was $₂₀₀₈3499, which is 420,000¥, whereas the 5D3 (+24-105) is $₂₀₁₂4299, which is only 340,000¥!

[RuneL]

I for one like video, for me and many colleagues it has opened up new markets and the ability to do a wider range of jobs with almost ones existing gear. For me it's not wasted. The problem is when customers expect you to deliver both video and photography - neither the photography or video is particularly good.

[lady]

To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer.

And how do you determine what a product is "worth" ? We have something called a "market place" that does a very good job of determining what something is "worth".  I put it to you this thing called a market place will sort it out, and neither the manufacturer nor the consumer has the power to dictate what the optimal market price for the item is.

Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price.

To me, all that indicates is that "the consumer" is not part of the target market for that product. If the consumer doesn't find the item to be worth the asking price, they may decline to purchase it. For example, I declined to purchase a medium format digital back. This doesn't necessarily mean that the manufacturer is "greedy", just that it isn't right for me.  The same is true of the 5D Mark III (I already own a MkII)

That's how this thing called a "market place" works. If "the consumer" in aggregate, really believes the item to be overpriced, the item will fail to sell at that price and the seller will usually find that they get more revenue by lowering their price.

By the way, gradually lowering their price is one way to effectively do "price discrimination" -- that is, if 10 people are willing to pay 3500 and 10 people are willing to pay 3000, you want your revenue to be 65000, not 35000 (if you had a fixed price of 3500) or 60000.

If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value

I don't understand why anyone is "complaining". No-one is forcing them to buy that or any other product, and it's not as though that is the only body that is compatible with Canon gear. There are a number of other very good camera bodies that will work with the accessories you have.

(usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

Again, if you're in the target market for this product, AND you're one of the people who needs to own the latest model almost immediately after its release, you probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and really won't sweat $500.

I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.

Again, what is your measure of value ?

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make. Some products sell for 50x what they cost to produce, while others might sell for 1.2x, 3x or even .8x. When nobody cares or does anything about it, these prices stay where they are. When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down. Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain. I've seen plenty of professionals with more than enough money to afford the 5D3 pointing out in reviews that the price wasn't equal to the value of the product, especially when considering competition. It's currently overpriced when keeping all of those factors in mind. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).

[ScottyP]

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen: the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.

That's because they're completely different products! Lens are to be expected to stay to the same price over large amounts of time, whereas printers, and low-end DSLRs are only on the market for a (low) fixed amount of time and discontinued. Moreover, they could even almost be sold at a loss as that would be tallied on the accessories (ink and lenses, respectively).

And, on Canon's point of view (accounts in Yen, again), the 5D mk3 cost less for the US consumer than the 5D mk2: 5D2 (+24-105) list price was $₂₀₀₈3499, which is 420,000¥, whereas the 5D3 (+24-105) is $₂₀₁₂4299, which is only 340,000¥!

Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Could it have something to do with the fact you can easily drive a Nissan for a few years, then a Ford for a few years, then a Honda for a few years, etc... with no problem?  But not so for an entire camera and lens system.  You can't put a Canon Lens on a Nikon body, and you can't put a Nikon lens on a Canon body (without a goofy adapter that sucks).  Therefore, the actual competition between Canon and Nikon is greatly dampened.  Most of the competition is with first-time buyers, who have yet to commit to a system and lock themselves in.  Once you have bought in to one system or another, it is very difficult to liquidate it all and start from scratch buying everything all over again in the competitor's system, so few people will do it.  This highly convenient fact has not gone unnoticed by Canon, who feels freer to charge a lot of money for their products.  As long as they feel enough people are buying, they will keep the prices as high as they possibly can.
The only real competition is from 3rd party lens makers, as they actually DO make lenses that fit all the major camera systems.  Maybe they will step it up on quality.  Or to some extent in the 4/3 convention lenses where several camera bodies accept lenses in that format from their real competitors.

[elflord]

Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Maybe they don't want to do this on their flagship products.

[dilbert]

Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

Where are Honda Civics made?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honda_assembly_plants
Not Japan.

Honda Civics are assembled in North America.

[dilbert]

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

It will depend on where a product is made.

For some products, the price of materials will get cheaper.

For lenses, I suspect not as it takes time to grow the crystals for the lenses and time isn't getting any cheaper. Similarly, raw materials aren't getting any cheaper. What does get cheaper is the process (as it gets further refined) and some components.

[elflord]

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value

That doesn't mean they are priced above their "value" -- it means that they have more value to some people than others. Value is subjective.

because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

Yes, (1) the product is worth more to some than others, and (2) some people are prepared to pay a premium to have the newest shiniest toy. Inevitably if the manufacturer sees that they can charge these people a premium they will use a higher initial price (like I mentioned before, this is a way for them to maximize sales revenue by catering to a variety of buyers).

They also use price discrimination via various rebate programs -- the cheapskates will wait until they can get it very cheaply, others will pay at some other point on the price curve.

First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make.

You can if you like decompose cost to the consumer as cost to make the product multiplied by profit margin, but that's not going to shed much light on the situation for two reasons. One is that costs are only relevant to the extent that they affect the supply curve. The second is that it is not absolute costs, profits and utility that matter, it is the marginal numbers.

When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down.

That might happen, or people might decline to buy the product, and the manufacturer are happy to sell a low volume of the product at a high price. Or the manufacturer might decide to use price discrimination to allow them to charge higher prices to people who are willing to pay them without losing more price sensitive customers (e.g. academic editions of software packages, rebate programs, etc).


Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain.

And that's the part I totally don't get. As the consumer, you get to determine what the marginal utility of the product is for you
. You can purchase or decline to purchase. You don't get to dictate what the marginal value of a sale is to the manufacturer, nor do you get to dictate what the marginal utility to any other buyer is.

For someone who doesn't find the product to meet their subjective notion of value, declining to purchase makes sense.  Just a reminder -- I am one of the people who declined to purchase the mark III.

If the complainers really were right, the manufacturer would be forced to reduce their price to accomodate the demands of the market place. But if this were the case, there would be no need to complain, just wait patiently for the manufacturer to get their introduction to reality. In this case, in my opinion, it is the complainers who are being introduced to reality (and aren't terribly happy with the process)

. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).

But that's smart -- they are using price discrimination to extract a premium from those who are willing to pay it. If it turns out that there are large numbers who would buy it for $3200 but not for $3000, they will probably lower their price (but not until they can build them fast enough to meet demand for those who want it at 3500)

[preppyak]

Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...

Because that hypothetical camera would have to sell as many units as the MkIII with video AND cost 30% less to produce (in R&D, manufacturing, etc) for Canon to offer it at $2500. Since selling fewer units would mean R&D/manufacturing costs aren't recouped the same...and $2500 is a 30% off discount from $3500.

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess they've done that research...and those calculations...and know they'd be hurting their sales by going that route. I'd say the fact the only non-video DSLR you can find is a luxury brand like Leica means other companies agree.

[elflord]

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

yeah, that's the thing -- video is very much a Joe consumer feature. Those who want a high end stills only camera don't necessarily expect a discount for lack of video (Leica, Medium format, and some high end full frame SLRs).

A cheaper body is always feasible, but you're going to have to give up something that is important to high end users (not video, not "face detection", not "sports mode"). The problem is that the complainers want all the high end features (the same features that those with big budgets want) at a low price.

[Richard8971]

Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money. I mean honestly, what performance "upgrades" could my camera have if it wasn't trying to support video.

Canon, leave video to video cameras and leave DSLR's for stills. PLEASE???

I have not and will not shoot video on ANY of my DSLR's and I personally own three that can (5DII, T1i and 7D) and I hate the fact it is even there.

D

[wickidwombat]

more annoying than any cost increase is making funtional changes to the detrement of stills on a DSLR
a perfect example of this is making the AA filter stronger not weaker to fix moire. this comes at the expense of still image sharpness which give the 5Dmk2 sensor a slight sharpness edge. the difference is not huge but its there. Put video in fine but dont impact on still shooting functionality or performance to improve video performance leave those things for the video models / cameras

[Orangutan]

Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

[kdsand]

Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

 Just a couple years ago I decided to invest in the Canon camera system. For me the idea or thought was -  I was stepping up to a very high end digital photography (DSLR) system, I could eventually work my way up to have F.F. and great glass. I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system. 

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs.They are the jack of all trades & master of none.
 I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off......... 
I want the best camera (((not the best video camera))) that I can get for the money I pay. Any compromise likely  will  negatively impact my still photography which thus negates my primary reason for buying into this system to begin with.

This is already an expensive hobby/occupation so please yes a couple of extra 100 dollars here & couple of extra 100 dollars there add up really fast especially if you try to estimate what you'll be investing over the next 2 or 3  years.  In my case it appears to be over 3000 dollars way over (u.s.d.). Unfortunately that is a substantial chunk of change for me and my budget to part with. 

 As an example-
I just recently ended up buying the sigma 17 - 50mm 2.8 at less than half the price of Canons. I personally couldn't justify the humongous price difference. After much research I definitely feel that Canon is way way way over pricing this piece of glass. Not only can I not afford to have my budget negatively impacted from being taken advantage of but I also just plain don't like it!