October 21, 2014, 04:37:52 PM

Author Topic: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?  (Read 18945 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3086
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #135 on: May 14, 2012, 01:46:57 PM »
On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit.

Of course it can as is happening in some places with the Nikon D800 at present.

There is nothing wrong with the price going up if demand goes up - that is how a free market system works.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #135 on: May 14, 2012, 01:46:57 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2180
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #136 on: May 14, 2012, 01:51:56 PM »
You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Unfocused, I'm basically on your side, and I did not miss that argument: I was just re-iterating my understanding of the viewpoints of the "yes" camp.  One one hand, more sales drive down per-unit cost by spreading fixed costs across a larger number of units.  On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit.  E.g. iPads.  Does it actually do this?  I don't know, and I doubt we have access to data to prove one way or another.  We only know that per-unit production cost goes down with increased sales.

My main argument against the "yes it does" camp is that there is no reason to believe that video adds significantly to the R&D and manufacturing costs.  Any price increase would be due to market forces, and you can't expect any company to forgo extra profit to accommodate a minority of purists.

Personally, I believe the 5D3 was designed as a wedding/event camera, and it hits that spot pretty nicely. 

In the end, we just don't know the answer, so it's not worth fretting over.

Oh yeah, I realize that you get it. Wasn't trying to imply otherwise. And, like you, I agree the "cost" of video  isn't worth bothering with. I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet. :)

And yes, I absolutely agree with you that the 5DIII was designed with a very specific market in mind and seems to be succeeding quite nicely with that market.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 745
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #137 on: May 14, 2012, 01:57:29 PM »
I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet. :)

http://xkcd.com/386/

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1018
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #138 on: May 14, 2012, 02:32:50 PM »
If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X

actually I like that find that pricing differential perfectly right. :-)

And I want Canon to offer the same choice between a stills-oriented model (price = 100%) and a video-optimized model (@ 200% price) also at the 5D, 7D and rebel level.

I don't see any reason, why Canon does not make reasonably cheap large-sensored "real video-cams" without mirror, without mirrorbox, without OVF, with video-optimized features galore ... why oh why does this have to be implemented in stills-optimized DSLRs of all things?

If Canon would at last bring an FF mirrorless to market ... and i fthat thing also had video in it - then I would say, alright, in a mirrorless camera, video really is a "most natural thing", but certainly not in DSLRs. So while we stills shooters only get DSLRs, give us at least an option for "lowest price possible" stills-only DSLRs and charge thos, that need and want video EXTRA for an EXTRA feature. 

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2012, 10:08:04 PM »
As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #140 on: May 15, 2012, 01:47:29 AM »
As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?

I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #141 on: May 15, 2012, 05:54:21 AM »
I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....

Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine.  I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

The real picture is more nuanced than this -- there are a variety of stills users with different budgets and requirements.
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #141 on: May 15, 2012, 05:54:21 AM »

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1018
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #142 on: May 15, 2012, 07:00:51 AM »
Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine.  I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

I agree with you, that Canon's product line-up does not make much sense.

Why are their dedicated video-cams so bloody expensive? I am talking about the Cxxx-line. These things must be way cheaper to build than a 5D3 ... no mirrorbox+contents, no prism, no Phase-AF system ... all fairly expensive components requiring a lot of very careful and precise adjustment during manufacturing.

Why is there no "entry"-level C100 with video capabilities at the level of a 5D 3 and costs @ around USD/Euro 2000?

The only product where I see some sense for convergence stills+video is the 1D X ...  fast tool for image jounalists, sports professionals. But then again, why on earth did Canon announce a 1D C ... instead of a C600 or whatever number that would be so much miore suitable to (hi end) video and could be manufactured for a lot less money? And why would somebody prefer a clumsy DSLR-body over a video-optimized camera to shoot hi-end video/cine stuff? Just does not make any sense to me. The only thing that makes sense to me is that video-purchasers get a choice between PL and EF lens mount on the heigher-end gear. If Canon wants to call all their imaging gear "EOS", that does not bother me, although I fail to see compelling reasons to do so.   

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? Make video users pay a reasonble amount more for the video feature, rather than charging everybody for it, whether you want it or not. For those, needing both - stills and video - that  would still be a lot cheaper than buying a dedicated video cam plus a stills DSLR.

Since Nikon is selling the D800, a better stills camera with similar video capability for less than what the 5D 3 costs, the following  price points would seem about right to me:
5D3 stills only -  USD/€ 2500
5D3 stills + video [the one we got) - USD/€ 2,900 ... matching D800 price
7D II stills only - ca. USD/€ 1700
7D II stills + video - ca. € 2000

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #143 on: May 15, 2012, 07:38:33 AM »
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. It doesn't work well as a way to do price discrimination either because some stills-only people are prepared to spend big $, so they gain some revenue by letting in the cheapskates, but they lose sales dollars from those who would have been willing to pay the higher price. The right way to do price discrimination is to ensure that those who are willing to spend more don't buy the cheaper product.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 07:46:31 AM by elflord »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #144 on: May 15, 2012, 07:49:08 AM »
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?

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1018
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #145 on: May 15, 2012, 07:59:04 AM »
Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

well I expect Canon will have to do some studying of supply and demand curves soon. Once the initial demand for the 5D3 is fulfilled, they will have to lower the price quickly below the D800. I believe it will already happen in the pre-christmas season this year (2012). 

HurtinMinorKey

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
    • carolineculler.com
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #146 on: May 15, 2012, 12:24:00 PM »
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?

Um, honestly I don't think this would affect the price of the 5D3 much. The video is basically a free tack on. It's clear that Canon felt that they could not justify putting NO video (since the 5D2 had it), but it's totally nerfed below its capabilities(it's processor is capable of at least X2 the bitrate). The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4812
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #147 on: May 15, 2012, 01:38:17 PM »
The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.

... or 5d3 with magic lantern :-)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #147 on: May 15, 2012, 01:38:17 PM »

ScottyP

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #148 on: May 15, 2012, 02:43:50 PM »
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?

Kind of funny, but kind of true too.  Look at printers.  Most printer makers (presumably Canon too) sell printers cheap, at little or no profit.  They make their money on the ink cartridges over time.
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"

kdsand

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Newt II a human stampede
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #149 on: May 15, 2012, 03:17:45 PM »
video is definitely here to stay and that is fine by me.
 I just do not want to have concessions - we pay a ton of money for this high end equipment and do our best to hone our skills yes it is a skill so any little thing that sacrifices any potential advancement is a big deal. If it comes down to it have 1 product optimized for video and 1 optimize for stills.
Perhaps in a way you could say I pinch pennies then again I am investing my money over the long term.
Having the option to use video would not even be there if the still photographers we're not driving the development/demand from the start.

 If it photographers were willing to say "fine whatever that's fine"  :-X then we'd be in a worse pickle right now - we have to keep looking for the highest quality best performing equipment that we can possibly get it and if we did not do not --- well then we would see fewer and fewer advancements........... :-\

Hey you know - call it what it is. I value the highest quality and best performance I can get it. So every little concession that I find is gonna make me squeal louder and louder.   :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
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 #149 on: May 15, 2012, 03:17:45 PM »