December 02, 2016, 01:10:46 PM

Author Topic: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]  (Read 23772 times)

goodmane

  • Guest
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2012, 07:20:55 AM »
I would be interested in this if it is lighter than the 5d classic, and a bit smaller.

I really want something a little lighter with a built-in flash, but I'm not willing to give up the large viewfinder and nice image quality of full frame. I also really want video mode, auto ISO in PASM modes, and some wireless transfer built-in would be nice, perhaps with an ftp link run on Android on the backscreen.

I also want a small lens e.g. better 35mm f2 to go with it. As in, USM AF, and better screen coating. While you're at it Canon, how about a non-branded strap to go with my camera so I'm not a walking advert? Canon colours are fine, but I don't want your logo on my shoulder.

I really hope Canon delivers on the cheaper, more useable full frame camera front, because I am unhappy with the level of technology in cameras at the moment relative to smartphones for example, where you can take pics and video then wirelessly transfer everything to the PC (or wherever) when you feel like it.

I do not expect to have to pay extra for wireless functionality in 2012. This should be the price of admission to market these days, not a selling point!

Also while I don't expect every trinket from the 5D3, the AF needs a serious boost, just to compete with 2012 competition e.g. micro four thirds.

Canon is no longer competing with just standard DSLRs in this category anymore, but also with M43 and Fuji x100 etc.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2012, 07:20:55 AM »

nicku

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2012, 08:03:16 AM »
So essentially it will be the 5d2?  I'm not sure why they don't just drop the price of the 5d2.

Maybe a 5D2 with 7D AF. i will definitely buy one for $2000-2200.

The only thing they must do is to implement the 7D AF in the current 5D2 and change the name( say 6D, 3D) .
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 08:05:56 AM by nicku »

dukeofprunes

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2012, 08:05:19 AM »

...

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)
EOS 5D mkII | 17-40 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L IS | 70-200 f/4 L IS | Speedlite 430EX II

nitsujwalker

  • Guest
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2012, 11:07:54 AM »
Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

Quote from: daniel_charms
#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology.  Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

Interesting insight..  The harddrive analogy makes sense.

Danack

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2012, 12:03:35 PM »
I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

I don't think it would be that much...the cost of magnesium is only a couple of dollars, and yes machining it into a body is not cheap, but it couldn't be much more than $50.


It won't be the SD card that gets the chop but rather the CF card. It's a larger enclosure. Smaller card, smaller enclosure, smaller door.

Possibly. That would make sense to entice people upgrading from non-full frame cameras. Sucks for people like me with two 5d classics and a whole bunch of compact flash cards.


Quote
The only way that would make it cheaper is if there is dedicated hardware that would be left out.

It wouldn't make the manufacturing cost cheaper, but it would make the product be worth much less (in consumers eyes), and so allow Canon to have a significant price differential between the 5d mkIII and a 'cut-down' full frame camera.

And yeah I don't think that leaving video out makes much sense - as Canon are not just competing with their own product line, but with lots of other competitors as well.

Quote
Which one are you going to choose?

Actually - I'm waiting for the 1DX to come out and am saving up for that...

dukeofprunes

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2012, 03:45:11 PM »
I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

I don't think it would be that much...the cost of magnesium is only a couple of dollars, and yes machining it into a body is not cheap, but it couldn't be much more than $50.

I think build quality comes at a higher premium. If 1D series build quality comes at $50, why don't all xxD cameras have it? It's relatively cheap compared to the total price.

I suspect the pricing policy of these products has as much with Canon (and other brands) DSLR line up, as with absolute production costs. Entry level pricing needs to be competitive, while pro level pricing is more determined by what the users are willing to pay. In that respect, I think there are alooot of wedding photographers willing to pay $3.500 for the 5D3.
EOS 5D mkII | 17-40 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L IS | 70-200 f/4 L IS | Speedlite 430EX II

whatta

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2012, 04:03:01 PM »
I was hoping for a 60d size/price full frame (max 7d price), but then I decided not to wait further and invested too much into efs lenses..
Canon 400d | efs 15-85 | efs 60/2.8 | Sigma 30/1.4 | (broken efs 17-85)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2012, 04:03:01 PM »

MacDarcy

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 8
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2012, 12:22:20 AM »
Ok. Since this is just a rumor, I'll bite. :-)

I would LOVE to see a FF rebel! Yup. Thats what I'd like ta see. Canon, make it happen!

Small. Light. Basic. Entry level FF for the masses. Yeah baby! Bring it! Heh heh heh


Danack

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2012, 06:03:06 AM »
Actually I thought of how they can knock a significant amount off the price of a full frame camera. Drop the:

Mirror
Penta-prism
Phase detection focusing

aka make a full-frame mirrorless camera. Those three items are all pretty expensive material wise and also make the manufacture process much more complicated, so removing them would result in a full-frame camera much cheaper than a 5d MKiii.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2012, 08:13:32 AM »
Ok. Since this is just a rumor, I'll bite. :-)

I would LOVE to see a FF rebel! Yup. Thats what I'd like ta see. Canon, make it happen!

Small. Light. Basic. Entry level FF for the masses. Yeah baby! Bring it! Heh heh heh

They've already made it, over 6 years ago. The 5dc is the budget full frame camera thats under 1000$.

DB

  • Guest
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2012, 10:14:38 AM »
Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

Quote from: daniel_charms
#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology.  Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.


You state categorically that Canon have spent a lot of money on R&D for the 5D3, could you tell us all how much? To the nearest hundred thousand dollars would be fine.

Fact and Opinion are two very different things.

IMHO they spent very little on 5D3 R&D: 7D body, 1DX AF system, 5D2 slightly modified sensor, same 5D2 battery etc.

DB

  • Guest
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2012, 10:22:26 AM »
If Canon do decide to make a body like this, I think they need to change the entire concept of the camera and make it smaller and lighter than any of the current full frame models.  That would be a good way of marketing it as something different from the 5D MkII.

Agree. I think it should be a new category of camera - a 6d or something.

There's definitely a market for people who would like FF but won't spend on a 5d3 (or don't need the features) but who would like an "upgrade" from their 7d, 5d1 or something.

+1 Could not agree more. As a 7D user with several L lenses who would like my next body to be FF, I'd be prepared to pay up to $2000 for the camera body, but would never consider three and a half thousand euros (that's US$4,460) for a 5D3 which is what it retails for in my country.

There is potentially a large swathe of APS-C camera owners with good glass that would buy a sub-$2000 FF camera, and if NIKON get there first, well they will likely clean-up both in market share and profitability.

Ew

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 11:07:44 AM »
If you're invested in glass you would be less likely to jump ship - probably hold out for the home team to catch up.
5D3 | 600D | EOSm | Samyang 8mm 3.8T | Samyang 14 2.8 | 17-40 | 28 1.8 | Sig 35 1.4 | 40 | 50 1.4 | 100 2.0 | 135 L | 70-200 4L IS + x1.4mk2 | Nippon Kogaku 50 1.4 (1965) | Nikkor 43-86 (mid 1970s) | M: 22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 11:07:44 AM »

daniel_charms

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2012, 12:53:57 PM »
You state categorically that Canon have spent a lot of money on R&D for the 5D3, could you tell us all how much? To the nearest hundred thousand dollars would be fine.

Fact and Opinion are two very different things.

IMHO they spent very little on 5D3 R&D: 7D body, 1DX AF system, 5D2 slightly modified sensor, same 5D2 battery etc.

Just because Canon has already used the same AF system in another camera (which has been announced but hasn't actually reached the market yet) it doesn't mean it didn't cost them anything to add the same sensor to the 5d3. Developing this AF system cost a certain fixed amount of money that they will have to recover somehow; the fact that they chose to use it in another camera besides their flagship product just means this cost will be spread out between two different camera lines, just like the cost of developing the Digic V chip will be spread out between different cameras and so on. And which one of those do you think will help them recover most of it? My guess is it definitely won't be the one still not actually shipping.

samirachiko

  • Guest
Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2012, 10:47:51 AM »
A cheap FF must have these features for me: swivel screen, Built-in Flash, HD video capture, 18/20 Mpx, (I don't care fps if you love theme buy a 7D! ;)

Then all that PROFESSIONAL features of a 5D MK3 I don't need theme at all!! A LOT of people aren't professional! BUT we love FF cameras!

Would be perfect if we can buy A NEW 5D+24-105L for 2000 Euro! This ca be PERFECT. Nikon will make a FF for 1500 dollar!!!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2012, 10:47:51 AM »