Camera Release Model

[Tioga]

From a business perspective, I am curious why Canon (and other camera companies) have chosen to create such a long time between releases for their professional bodies. I have been using Canon DSLRs for about 8 years and from reading this site and others it seems Canon has built up a fear in its customers that they should always wait for the next release before buying. Regardless of how great a camera is, it seems customers are not comfortable buying technology that is more than a year or so old. Also by only releasing a new model body every 3+ years, they are missing out on users who would upgrade more often if given the choice.

So my question is why wouldn't Canon release a new 1D/5D/7D every year? I understand developing new sensors is expensive but they wouldn't need to upgrade the sensor every year. There are plenty of upgrades (AF, LCD, Software Features, whatever) they could do that would be improvements over the previous year's model.

I wonder how many people on this forum would have bought a 5D Mark II, III, IV, V if Canon had released a new model each year

 

[Loswr]

From a revenue standpoint, the bulk of the dSLR revenue comes from entry-level consumer bodies, and those are generally updated annually, although the goal there isn't necessarily to induce upgrades as much as to lure new customers to the line - so, it needs to be kept 'fresh'.

From a cost standpoint, a lot of R&D spend goes into a camera, and the newest/best/top tech that gets put into the higher end of the line generally costs more to develop - that means the technology must be kept on the market longer to recover those R&D costs.

Also, for the pro lines, there was a 'roadmap' graphic a while back that had those clearly placed in the B2B section of Canon's presumed market, i.e. in Canon's viewpoint, the primary consumers for 1-series cameras are businesses (from sole proprietor studios on up). Generally, equipment purchased by business is subject to depreciation over a period of several years (obviously, there are exceptions like IRS Section 179). So, from a business standpoint there may be a disadvantage to upgrading equipment too frequently. That's consistent with a longer release cycle for pro cameras.

 

[Tioga]

From a cost standpoint, a lot of R&D spend goes into a camera, and the newest/best/top tech that gets put into the higher end of the line generally costs more to develop - that means the technology must be kept on the market longer to recover those R&D costs.

Thanks for the comments neuro. I wasn't suggesting they should keep any particular technology in the market for less time. I was suggesting they could upgrade their features independently. Just a quick random example:

1. Sensors
2. AF
3. Camera software

Each would only get upgraded every three years so the R&D spent on say the sensor design would stay in the market for the same three years. But after a year, the AF would be upgraded which would then stay in the market for three years and so on... More of a staggered approach... not upgrading everything all at once.

Also, for the pro lines, there was a 'roadmap' graphic a while back that had those clearly placed in the B2B section of Canon's presumed market, i.e. in Canon's viewpoint, the primary consumers for 1-series cameras are businesses (from sole proprietor studios on up). Generally, equipment purchased by business is subject to depreciation over a period of several years (obviously, there are exceptions like IRS Section 179). So, from a business standpoint there may be a disadvantage to upgrading equipment too frequently. That's consistent with a longer release cycle for pro cameras.

I can definitely see this but companies wouldn't need to upgrade every year. But when it came time to upgrade, they wouldn't have to worry as much where Canon was in their release cycle. I also think there is a fair amount of consumers who are the customers of the 5D and 7D lines.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Professional camera users are not like consumer users. Professional users buy a camera and use it every day until it wears out. They do not want new models coming out every year, only when there is a significant advance in camera technology that will allow them to pay for a new body.

Consumers, on the otherhand seem to want the latest and greatest, even if it is only a tiny difference from a previous model. Since the consumer cameras are sold in very large quantities, Canon can afford to put on a new nameplate, change the software slightly and make some other hardware tweaks every year. They upgrade the processor hardware and sensor less frequently, because development of a new sensor is extremely expensive.

 

[Loswr]

I was suggesting they could upgrade their features independently. Just a quick random example:

1. Sensors
2. AF
3. Camera software

Each would only get upgraded every three years so the R&D spent on say the sensor design would stay in the market for the same three years. But after a year, the AF would be upgraded which would then stay in the market for three years and so on... More of a staggered approach... not upgrading everything all at once.

Interesting model. I wonder what that would do to sales? Likely, just one main feature would not be enough to get me to upgrade...perhaps the three year cycle would remain nearly unchanged? But marketing decisions are often driven by wanting to make a big splash, and modest upgrades may not be as attractive.

 

[Tioga]

Professional camera users are not like consumer users. Professional users buy a camera and use it every day until it wears out. They do not want new models coming out every year, only when there is a significant advance in camera technology that will allow them to pay for a new body.

Professional camera users (and everyone else) would still be able to choose if and when to buy a camera. Canon releasing incremental updates would not change that at all. When it comes time for the professional to purchase a camera, it would only benefit them if there had been incremental improvements. I also wonder what percentage of 5D and 7D purchases are made by non-professionals.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks for the comments neuro. I wasn't suggesting they should keep any particular technology in the market for less time. I was suggesting they could upgrade their features independently. Just a quick random example:

1. Sensors
2. AF
3. Camera software

Each would only get upgraded every three years so the R&D spent on say the sensor design would stay in the market for the same three years. But after a year, the AF would be upgraded which would then stay in the market for three years and so on... More of a staggered approach... not upgrading everything all at once.

Improvements need to be driven by availability of significantly better technology, you can't require technology breakthru's to happen on a schedule.

If new technology is developed and the competition has it, you'd better not wait three years to release it.

 

[Tioga]

Interesting model. I wonder what that would do to sales? Likely, just one main feature would not be enough to get me to upgrade...perhaps the three year cycle would remain nearly unchanged? But marketing decisions are often driven by wanting to make a big splash, and modest upgrades may not be as attractive.

Three year cycle for an individual may stay unchanged but the point a new customer buys into the cycle would be much less important. I am just thinking of all the people who seem to be waiting for a 5D Mark III, not really because there is anything wrong with the II, but because the computer industry has conditioned us to be weary of buying "old" technology.

“Marketing is what you do when your product is no good” - Edwin Land

 

[Tioga]

Improvements need to be driven by availability of significantly better technology, you can't require technology breakthru's to happen on a schedule.

If new technology is developed and the competition has it, you'd better not wait three years to release it.

Totally agree, Spokane. That was just a dumbed down example. The idea is just that you come up with something each year to improve or at least appear to improve.

 

[unfocused]

I'm actually kind of intrigued by this idea and it's not all that unusual when you look around.

It's not just a consumer product phenomenon either. If I'm a carpenter and I go and buy a new radial saw, I don't expect the manufacturer of the saw to hold back on future modifications of the saw until they can release a "Mark II" version. Instead, the manufacturer will add a feature as they develop it. If it's significant, they'll change a model number, but frankly, who is going to notice or care.

Perhaps a better example is the computer industry. No one expects Dell to hold back on changes in their desktop line until they can make a whole bunch at once. In fact, we all expect that a week after we order a new desktop or laptop, a new model will be available.

What Tioga seems to be asking is why camera manufacturers follow a cyclical upgrade model, instead of an incremental change model? I presume it's because of the domino effect of making certain changes. That the introduction of a new auto-focus system, for example, creates a chain reaction that requires other modifications and the embedded costs of making individual changes makes it more economical to make a bunch of changes all at once. On the other hand, the basic SLR form factor hasn't changed much in 60 years, so I'm not sure how much retooling would be required to add a feature as it's developed.

Certainly marketing may enter into the equation. Although I'm not sure how it would affect sales. Would I replace my 7D sooner if every six months they were making small changes to it? I could see it going either way. It might cause me to delay an upgrade because another one is always on the way. On the other hand, I might look at my 7D after three years and say "gee, there have been six upgrades since I bought this one, maybe it's time for a new one."

Interesting idea. You won't find any definitive answers on this forum. In fact, I have to wonder if the industry answer might be: "because that's the way everyone else does it."

 

[awinphoto]

One of the things why a brand new car drops several thousands of dollars when it drives off the lot is because it's now used (plus all the mark-up they add to it... ) I think if they start pumping out pro cameras every year, incremental or not, a few problems arise... A higher defect/recall/QC concern and with a more saturated market of pro cameras, it's going to drive down the price they can demand for their top cameras... when I had my 10D and when I sold my 10D, I was able to resell it for a good chunk of what I bought my new camera (at the time)... Now adays, with my 7D for instance, because the market is saturated, I could sell it for maybe a $500-600 hit if not more... and it's only 2 years old.. If there's a higher saturation in the market, fewer and fewer people would be buying new and getting used gear 1-2 years old... That could drive down prices on fewer models sold new... Plus when you tack on costs of production, research and development, etc... It probably doesn't make sense for them...

One thing I wouldn't object to is option upgrades/firmwares which could (at an owners expense/option) purchase an upgraded firmware that adds even more functionity/goodies to the camera or maybe offering cameras with basic software packages at a cheaper price and having additional add-ons/packages for new software or firmwares that unlocks certain features or expands upon the camera... I could see that more as a possibility that over-saturating the market with pro cameras...

 

[sb]

Professional camera users are not like consumer users. Professional users buy a camera and use it every day until it wears out. They do not want new models coming out every year, only when there is a significant advance in camera technology that will allow them to pay for a new body.

That's exactly right, I couldn't have said it any better. And Canon knows this. Professionals see it as a tool which gets the job done, consumers see it as a tech toy which must be the latest and greatest , otherwise it's crap (i.e. think iPhone)

I on the other hand want my investment to pay off, so if I invest 3K+ in a body, that body better earn income for years to come. Besides, I want to take advantage of that long shutter life and use the camera until it stops working. If it's rated at 150,000 actuations, I would actually like to get there before having to buy a new one, and I definitely can't do that in 1 or 2 years no matter how much I shoot.

 

[Loswr]

One thing I wouldn't object to is option upgrades

Canon isn't totally averse to that strategy - recall that when the 60D came out with the locking mode dial, Canon offered that feature as a $100 upgrade for the 5DII and 7D.

 

[Tioga]

Professional camera users are not like consumer users. Professional users buy a camera and use it every day until it wears out. They do not want new models coming out every year, only when there is a significant advance in camera technology that will allow them to pay for a new body.

That's exactly right, I couldn't have said it any better. And Canon knows this. Professionals see it as a tool which gets the job done, consumers see it as a tech toy which must be the latest and greatest , otherwise it's crap (i.e. think iPhone)

I on the other hand want my investment to pay off, so if I invest 3K+ in a body, that body better earn income for years to come. Besides, I want to take advantage of that long shutter life and use the camera until it stops working. If it's rated at 150,000 actuations, I would actually like to get there before having to buy a new one, and I definitely can't do that in 1 or 2 years no matter how much I shoot.

Canon releasing an upgraded model every year doesn't determine when you individually upgrade your cameras. You would still have the option to upgrade whenever you wanted. But your next door neighbor who always wants the latest and greatest would buy the new 5D every year and the professional photography studio down the street that is growing could buy new cameras every year knowing they are always getting the latest technology. And the best photographer in your town could keep using his original 5D for the next 20 years because it is still taking great photos.

The question is just what model would make Canon the most money.

 

[Isaac]

I would purchase a new pro body every 3 years. That's the perfect amount of time needed for me to "outgrow" what i've been using - 5D, 5D2. If a new body came out every year, I'd probably purchase a new one earliest - every 2 years.

 

[unfocused]

Professional camera users are not like consumer users. Professional users buy a camera and use it every day until it wears out. They do not want new models coming out every year, only when there is a significant advance in camera technology that will allow them to pay for a new body.

That's exactly right, I couldn't have said it any better. And Canon knows this. Professionals see it as a tool which gets the job done, consumers see it as a tech toy which must be the latest and greatest , otherwise it's crap (i.e. think iPhone)

I on the other hand want my investment to pay off, so if I invest 3K+ in a body, that body better earn income for years to come. Besides, I want to take advantage of that long shutter life and use the camera until it stops working. If it's rated at 150,000 actuations, I would actually like to get there before having to buy a new one, and I definitely can't do that in 1 or 2 years no matter how much I shoot.

Canon releasing an upgraded model every year doesn't determine when you individually upgrade your cameras. You would still have the option to upgrade whenever you wanted. But your next door neighbor who always wants the latest and greatest would buy the new 5D every year and the professional photography studio down the street that is growing could buy new cameras every year knowing they are always getting the latest technology. And the best photographer in your town could keep using his original 5D for the next 20 years because it is still taking great photos.

Tioga, is correct.

He's merely pointing out that camera manufacturers like to gang multiple improvements into new models, rather than make slight changes in features as they improve them. Amateur or professional (which is a pretty fuzzy line anyway) it makes no difference if there have been six models or one model between your upgrades. You'll upgrade when you feel your equipment is no longer meeting your needs.

Do you upgrade your tripod, lights, lightstands, backdrops, softboxes, etc. every time a new one comes out? Of course not. Do you even know when the last model came out and if you are buying a brand new version or one that is eight years old?

Professional or amateur, we all should upgrade when the equipment we have no longer meets our needs. (Yes, we all like to buy new things...but that's a phenomenon that afflicts people regardless of whether or not they earn a living from their tools.)

 

[UncleFester]

A new camera body each year would cut into my new-large-screen-tv-each-year budget. Financially, I just can't swing the two.

From a business perspective, I am curious why Canon (and other camera companies) have chosen to create such a long time between releases for their professional bodies. I have been using Canon DSLRs for about 8 years and from reading this site and others it seems Canon has built up a fear in its customers that they should always wait for the next release before buying. Regardless of how great a camera is, it seems customers are not comfortable buying technology that is more than a year or so old. Also by only releasing a new model body every 3+ years, they are missing out on users who would upgrade more often if given the choice.

So my question is why wouldn't Canon release a new 1D/5D/7D every year? I understand developing new sensors is expensive but they wouldn't need to upgrade the sensor every year. There are plenty of upgrades (AF, LCD, Software Features, whatever) they could do that would be improvements over the previous year's model.

I wonder how many people on this forum would have bought a 5D Mark II, III, IV, V if Canon had released a new model each year

 

[distant.star]

Peering into the mind of Canon is like looking at the sun with the naked eye and hoping to see a hydrogen atom.


As for "marketing," no one defined it better than legendary comedian Bill Hicks:

"If anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalization for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself...."