Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

[peederj]

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x



This is appalling enough IMO that any hacker who manages to get the 1DC firmware running on the 1DX ought to be...uhm...canonized as a saint.

I wonder if the C100 can similarly be turned into a C500.

In fact, I'm going to bet the 6D could probably do 4K video just the same if they wanted it to.

This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.

The final indignity will be their refusing to *ever* send out decripple firmware for the bodies that could have ran it. They will ask you to buy a new body, just because we let them.

 

[drjlo]

Not much surprises me about Canon's pricing and marketing tactics any more.
If Magic Lantern folks can ever figure out how to get around the dual Digic systems like 1DX, and implement 4K video, then why.. all kinds of hell would break loose :-*

 

[DB]

It's not a case of 'IF' but 'WHEN' now, especially given the price differential. They should never have admitted that it was identical hardware. I'll bet by Christmas there will be filmmakers shooting 4K on a 1DX branded body ;D

 

[BruinBear]

What is appalling about this?

A macbook and a macbook with creative suite have the exact same hardware, yet the one with creative suite will cost you an extra 3.5k.

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

 

[Shawn L]

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

Being a programmer myself, I agree

Shawn L.

 

[peederj]

Canon refuses to price and sell the firmware upgrade. 1DX owners are SOL and treated like dirt even though they shelled out for Canon's flagship DSLR.

It is gruesome bad PR for their brand. It's simply arrogant mistreatment of the customer. And to pay for the programmers, the economies of scale they are forgoing by overpricing the thing would have taken care of that.

When Sony released the FS700 they promised futureproofing with 4K output. RED has a camera upgrade policy. Blackmagic cripples nothing intentionally, they are just starting out but they give you RAW video for $3,000. Canon could let us record RAW to SSD just the same for $3,000 and make a tidy profit and pay all their programmers too. By making their products more exclusive based on price they are acting elitist and fully against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Is this the same Canon person that confirmed the 24-70mmL MK II was delayed until after October?
Certainly, much of the hardware will be the same.

 

[Drizzt321]

Not much surprises me about Canon's pricing and marketing tactics any more.
If Magic Lantern folks can ever figure out how to get around the dual Digic systems like 1DX, and implement 4K video, then why.. all kinds of hell would break loose :-*

I guess you missed http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/hacked-the-magic-lantern-team-cracks-the-eos-7d/ then. The 7d is a dual DIGIC, so perhaps ML will come to the 1DX eventually...I wouldn't hold my breath for anytime soon though.

 

[CharlieB]

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

Being a programmer myself, I agree

Shawn L.

No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace.
Thats the only thing that matters.

 

[jebrady03]

No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace.
Thats the only thing that matters.

Absolutely correct! If I invent something that costs me 47 cents to invent, patent, manufacture, distribute, promote, and sell - but I manage to sell out all I can make at 100 trillion dollars - why is that wrong?

I'm ALL ABOUT the internet - but I fear it has QUICKLY and DRASTICALLY brought about a sense of IMMENSE entitlement in our society (stuff that used to cost money can now be DL'd for free from lots of pirate websites and thus APPROPRIATE value is a thing of the past).

If someone wants to shoot 4K, they need to cough up $6K. If that pisses them off - beat sand to a competitor that's giving it away for free (or an upgrade fee). Enough others will take their place that Canon won't miss them. And should Canon fail, another company will step up and take their place and then people will be screaming about how they're bending people over too.

Get over your sense of entitlement.

 

[Loswr]

By making their products more exclusive based on price they are...

...charging what the market will bear (in their estimate) and thus maximizing profit, which in turn maximizes shareholder value, which is their obligation as a publicly held corporation.

...against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.

Democratic liberation of independent filmmakers isn't their goal or responsibility (see above). Besides...those indies that were successful using 5DII's can now afford 1D C's, right? If not, they should just buy used 5DII's from the ones that have moved up...

 

[unfocused]

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

Being a programmer myself, I agree

Shawn L.

Not being a programmer, I also agree. Somebody needs to figure out all those 0s and 1s and I'm glad it ain't me.

I think I'll start a new thread: "OMG, Apple admits the iTouch and iPhone are essentially the same device"

 

[CharlieB]

No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace.
Thats the only thing that matters.

Absolutely correct! If I invent something that costs me 47 cents to invent, patent, manufacture, distribute, promote, and sell - but I manage to sell out all I can make at 100 trillion dollars - why is that wrong?
Get over your sense of entitlement.

My sense of entitlement? What are you talking about man? Are you daft? I'm talking about simple manufacturing economics, something which you obviously know nothing about.

Yes, if you can make a trillion off 47 cents, its your right and privilege to do so! Thats not entitlement, its economics.

Let me 'splain once again. The final price of anything, is only what the market - thats you and me - are willing to pay. Thats it. The cost of manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the final price. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is also clueless.

The old convention, of saying "it costs me X to make" so I'll mark it up "this much" and the price will be Y is totally out the window with mass production, especially highly automated mass production. In modern manufacturing, we approach the product backwards. We take a concept, market the concept, determine its value to the market (what we're willing to pay) and then manufacture it to the most cost effective way possible, while still keeping the feature set that retains the value in the market. Thats how it works. Jeeze.

One more example. The industry I work within makes a product. It cost us about eight bucks to make. We sell it for about $250 to the distribution network. Why? Because our marketing shows that we can get realistically $400 for it. So, it MSRP's out for $675, dealers pay $250ish. They sell it for $400 (or sometimes less. The customer think they get 40 percent discount off "list". Thats how our market works. But, our cost is eight bucks. We make a sister product, cost exactly the same to make... within a nickle. Our marketing shows that we can get $550 for it. Dealers pay $345ish, and its MSRP's for $925. We love to sell those. Eight bucks turns into $350 for each one, and they go four to a case. And... and... if you dont like it - well dont buy it.

Entitlement indeed. Get real.

 

[K-amps]

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

Being a programmer myself, I agree

Shawn L.

The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.

 

[Jotho]

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.

Being a programmer myself, I agree

Shawn L.

The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.

For no reason can it ever be called immoral. Likely the actual manufacturing process of pre-loading the camera with the other firmware doesn't cost them anything, but would you not consider the development cost and future bug fix costs to be worth anything? This cost then has to be proportionally distributed toward forecasted number of sold products within a given timeframe, into this comes extra marketing money, a more complex distribution due to lower number of units sold etc etc. As you are likely not to expect that this model will be sold in high volumes like for example a 650D, then there are fewer sold units to distribute the cost to. Also, as far as I understand, Canon is not making provokingly large profits from their products like for example Apple, where you are apparently paying a huge premium for brand name.

Again are you upset and discussing a product that you are likely never to purchase.

Neuro puts it well above, Canon's ultimate reason to exist is to provide shareholder value. If they don't they will cease to exist. If they don't provide good enough products that the market won't accept, then they will also cease to exist. To me it looks like they're doing quite well.

 

[jfretless]

immoral?

seriously?

this has been happening since the invention of consumerism.

CPU companies locking cores?
Car companies de-tuning engines?
Food companies quietly shrinking package size while still charging the same amount of money?
Gas companies going for reducing octane ratings, but still calling it premium?

Why in the world would you expect anything different from Canon, or any other company?

 

[Loswr]

The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.

Flaunting ethical considerations? Immorality? Sheesh. Canon is running a business. They're not a church or a charity. They're selling what amounts to a luxury good, not charging impoverished, starving people thousands of dollars for a morsel of food and a sip of water. Their goal is to make a profit. Period. So long as they're not breaking the law, it's all fair game. If they want to hand paint a fuschia ring on the nifty-fifty using sparkly nail polish, call it a L3 Ultra-Cine lens, and charge $50,000 for it, they can. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If one filmmaker who's obsessed with the color fuschia buys it, and Canon makes a 3,000-fold profit on that sale, good for Canon.

If Fujio Mitarai points a real cannon (artillery piece) at your house, and threatens to shoot cannonballs through it with your family inside unless you buy a 1D C, that's unethical and immoral (not to mention illegal). If they're forcing workers to work 20 hour shifts with no food, water, or rest, that's unethical and immoral (even if, sadly, it's not illegal in some countries). But they can charge whatever price they want for their products - ethics and morality are irrelevant to their pricing decisions.

 

[K-amps]

The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.

Flaunting ethical considerations? Immorality? Sheesh. Canon is running a business. They're not a church or a charity. They're selling what amounts to a luxury good, not charging impoverished, starving people thousands of dollars for a morsel of food and a sip of water. Their goal is to make a profit. Period. So long as they're not breaking the law, it's all fair game. If they want to hand paint a fuschia ring on the nifty-fifty using sparkly nail polish, call it a L3 Ultra-Cine lens, and charge $50,000 for it, they can. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If one filmmaker who's obsessed with the color fuschia buys it, and Canon makes a 3,000-fold profit on that sale, good for Canon.

If Fujio Mitarai points a real cannon (artillery piece) at your house, and threatens to shoot cannonballs through it with your family inside unless you buy a 1D C, that's unethical and immoral (not to mention illegal). But they can charge whatever price they want for their products - ethics and morality are irrelevant.

So we agree it is immoral

 

[K-amps]

, Canon's ultimate reason to exist is to provide shareholder value. If they don't they will cease to exist.

Strictly speaking, even if they do not provide enhanced shareholder value, they will continue to exist (maybe the CEO wont) till they begin posting losses or earning below Asset coverage values. Shareholders might liquidate their holdings... yes but that does not mean Canon will cease to exist

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.

Flaunting ethical considerations? Immorality? Sheesh. Canon is running a business. They're not a church or a charity. They're selling what amounts to a luxury good, not charging impoverished, starving people thousands of dollars for a morsel of food and a sip of water. Their goal is to make a profit. Period. So long as they're not breaking the law, it's all fair game. If they want to hand paint a fuschia ring on the nifty-fifty using sparkly nail polish, call it a L3 Ultra-Cine lens, and charge $50,000 for it, they can. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If one filmmaker who's obsessed with the color fuschia buys it, and Canon makes a 3,000-fold profit on that sale, good for Canon.

If Fujio Mitarai points a real cannon (artillery piece) at your house, and threatens to shoot cannonballs through it with your family inside unless you buy a 1D C, that's unethical and immoral (not to mention illegal). But they can charge whatever price they want for their products - ethics and morality are irrelevant.

So we agree it is immoral

I suppose that you think that multimillion dollar center in Hollywood to support customers of Canon's Cinema products came for free, and the people working there should donate their time. After all, its immoral to charge for your work. All that makes up part of the cost of the product.
You need to look at the whole picture, not just a tiny portion.