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

[elflord]

I WANT a better "color" for my camera. Get it? The R/D and electronics/programming for video takes AWAY from better/upgraded hardware/better features because those options cost money, nothing more, nothing less. Canon chose to spend part of my hard earned money on VIDEO and not better features/upgraded hardware, something I did not ask for.

We've beaten this to death already. They do add to the fixed costs. It does not follow that they also add to the marginal cost per unit manufactured, or the price paid by the consumer.

You can have a camera without video, but it costs more, not less. If you really don't want to "waste money" on video, Leica, Hassleblad and others make some very good stills only cameras. They are not cheap but at least you won't "waste money on video"

[Strobe the globe]

Yes, I am sure that it is booting up the cost (probably very significantly) ... but in my opinion it's worth it. I like the flexibility of having one piece of hardware which I can use for two very different forms of visual creativity.

[AvTvM]

The video capability isn't just software, it is hardware and it is part of the camera in a way that makes it impossible for you to elect for it to not be there.

so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

If car manufacturers are able to provide so many and profoundly different customer-selected configurations on so many different models, camera makers [with typically only 5 models of DSLRs in production!] should also be able to and forced by their customers to do so. 

Even iPhones and iPads from the "grandmaster of inflexible companies" [Apple] are offered in 6 different configigurations each [WiFi/UMTS, 3x memory size].

To get ANY DSLR in a stills-only and video-enabled version would be the bare minimum. With a similar price differential as offered by Apple on an iPhone WiFi vs. one with WiFi and UMTS [around 20% ... although the cost difference to Apple is probaly less than 5 dollars per unit, R&D included!].

[HurtinMinorKey]

I'm not following this at all. If supply is flat  (not linear and certainly not linear with a slope of 10), then Cost(Q) = 10 (not 10Q)   So in the first example P = 100-Q, the curves cross where 10=100-Q, so Q = 90 and P = 10. Second example they cross at, P=200-Q = 10 = Cost(Q), so   Q=190 and P = 10 (more sales, same price)

In this case, the supply curve and MARGINAL cost are the same. Cost(Q)=10Q implies MC=10.

So in the first case, you would maximize Total Revenue-Total Cost= P*Q-C(Q)=(100-Q)Q-10Q.

Taking derivative with respect to Q, we get 100-2Q-10=0, resulting in Q=45. Plugging Q=45 back into the demand we get P=55.

I taught intermediate microtheory for 3 years at UNC-Chapel Hill, so for the sake of my former students, I hope I haven't f**ked this up. 

[kdsand]

I'll be strait forward & to the point.

• it is raising the cost of the bodies
• it is unused by many

Power windows.
Remember the old crank windows?
Once electric became standard then cost of manual cranks started to increase.
Eventually the cost of providing manual exceeded the cost of electric on the assembly line.
4 a time the manufacturers continued to offer manual at a savings to consumers while in reality quietly taking a loss.
Why?
In order to keep the perception of high value electric as being a premium option consumer pay more because "hey look at this added value your receiving".
Eventually even jeeps and pick up trucks came with power windows as standard equipment.
That doesn't stop the manufacturer from implying that it is an added benefit even today. 

 So let us say the top speed has gone up a bit, the transmission is a hair better, power steering is now up to the industry standard and the engine has about 4% more torque.

So should we run out and buy the vehicle based on it having power windows, improved cruise control and 5 percent more foot room now? Should we be focused on those power windows and thus be willing to pay a premium? 
 
I wanna be clear
 I am the only 1 that is right

Sorry.   

[Marsu42]

so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

But there's different hardware in 2wd vs 4wd cars. If looking for a comparison for camera bodies, it's pc cpus with different cores - for example AMD produces quadcores, but disables one or two cores to offer something for a budget while getting the most money from their premium customers (yes, I know that some of the less-then-four cpus have broken cores, but many do not and they can even be enabled by software).

I also think that video doesn't raise the manufacturing cost itsself that much, but just shifts the specs and r&d efforts. And it has been argued that a 5d3 is still cheap to other cine offerings with large sensors, so that's the origin of a potential price raise. But just like cpu manufacturers, I'd wish Canon would release a 5d3s w/o video and maybe another 5d3v with some still features disabled, say for $500-$750 less, purely for marketing reasons.

Well-off people or video users would still get the full 5d3, while Canon could generate more sales volume simply by some zero-cost firmware adjustments and different packaging. They could even sell a software upgrade :-)

[DB]

...
Look at pages 51-52 where they discuss the apparent demand for higher MP in DSLR but instead emphasize the imperative to boost sales support in developing markets as the main priority etc ad nauseam ....

Interesting. The 5D3 won't give them that boost in developing markets.

What their stated goal means is that they want to go into markets where they don't have a presence and capture new customers (sensible.) Those markets will need lower cost cameras.

Precisely.

Canon is boosting their marketing & sales efforts to sell millions of  EOS T4i/650D/1200D's in new markets. Video is a big selling point that persuades buyers in these markets to purchase Canon DSLR over Sony/Samsung point-n-shoot digital cameras (for a couple of hundred bucks more).

Do they really care if they only ever sell 50,000 5D3's or 100,000? It will not impact their bottom line that much. However, selling millions of plastic EF-S lenses (built by machines) rather than thousands of 'L' lenses that are hand assembled and polished (labour intensive, thus higher cost, so lower % margin), is where Canon sees their future revenue emanating from.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - just a couple of years ago, Canon sold their 50 millionth lens and 20 millionth camera body, but 50% of those total sales figures occurred in the previous 5-year period. So Canon sold more Camera/Lenses in the last half a dozen years than they did in their entire history prior to that.

[iaind]

I'll be strait forward & to the point.

• it is raising the cost of the bodies
• it is unused by many

Power windows.
Remember the old crank windows?
Once electric became standard then cost of manual cranks started to increase.
Eventually the cost of providing manual exceeded the cost of electric on the assembly line.
4 a time the manufacturers continued to offer manual at a savings to consumers while in reality quietly taking a loss.
Why?
In order to keep the perception of high value electric as being a premium option consumer pay more because "hey look at this added value your receiving".
Eventually even jeeps and pick up trucks came with power windows as standard equipment.
That doesn't stop the manufacturer from implying that it is an added benefit even today. 

 So let us say the top speed has gone up a bit, the transmission is a hair better, power steering is now up to the industry standard and the engine has about 4% more torque.

So should we run out and buy the vehicle based on it having power windows, improved cruise control and 5 percent more foot room now? Should we be focused on those power windows and thus be willing to pay a premium? 
 
I wanna be clear
 I am the only 1 that is right

Sorry.   

A true story

Original UK spec for Police Range Rovers was manual windows.

In time all Range Rovers had electric windows. It cost Land Rover money to convert Police Vehicles to manual windows.
Finally Land Rover got the spec changed to electric windows by offering to drop price.

[Neeneko]

*sigh* this topic again?

Bottom line, unless one has access to Canon's internal marketing data and cost breakdowns including all the gantt charts, we simply do not know.

Adding video does increase the cost of research and production.  It also increases the sales volume which amortizes this increased cost.  We do not know which one outweighs the other, if video is essentially a freebe for still photographers or a case of marketing group think that is unnecessarily driving up costs.  Could be either.

[Orangutan]

Yes, we've beaten it to death; however I do want to commend the participants on keeping it mostly civil.  Though there have been some posts that were a bit condescending, it never degenerated into a flame war, nor did the condescension persist.

Yeah, seems there's a lot of disagreement, but well-done on keeping it civil!

[Richard8971]

If you really don't want to "waste money" on video, Leica, Hassleblad and others make some very good stills only cameras. They are not cheap but at least you won't "waste money on video"

The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

[cayenne]

The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C

[wickidwombat]

The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C

we can start with the AA filter and go from there....

[briansquibb]

The OP was a question of "Is video RAISING cost of bodies? Is it WASTED for many shooters?"

My posts have dealt with that and only that. It is a wasted fuction in my opinion and I feel that my camera would be better (dollar per dollar) if it did NOT come with video, that's all. I love Canon and want the features of the 7D and 5D2. I am sorry they shoot video, I for one will NEVER use it. Oh well...

Could you elaborate on specific things you think keep your camera from being 'better' by having video functionality on the camera?

C

we can start with the AA filter and go from there....

Video friendly sensor sizes

[tron]

At least they should offer a 5DmkIII version with no - just like Nikon- or at least a very weak AA filter and let us choose at own risk.