and I just may have one for sale as soon as I get my hands on the R5if you want that, get an used R and consider yourself pretty much there already.
Upvote
0
and I just may have one for sale as soon as I get my hands on the R5if you want that, get an used R and consider yourself pretty much there already.
re-write this post.
There's been rumors for the last year of a high MP RF camera - so yeah somewhere around 80 to 100MP is the rumors.
(...)
I'm personally waiting for the high res version of this camera, so the R5 is not for me. But it's a damned impressive stills shooting machine.
I would suspect that the extra costs of maintaining a different product line, packaging, etc., etc., would make the camera less profitable even if they charged the same price. If they charged a bit less for it, they might pick up a few more sales, but hardly enough to cover the extra costs plus the discount.Unfortunately, I doubt Canon would be able to entertain your demands. Even if they cripple the video specs deliberately, they'd still be putting the same high end sensor into the camera, which means the cost savings is probably minimal. That translates to a slightly lower price for the buyer, but not as significant as you might imagine.
Sounds like the switching process has become a hobby to itself.It's a new world. We no longer have to completely change systems.
I'm one of the folks who mostly switched to Sony last year. I kept 13 EF lenses, though, and used all of them via the excellent Sigma adapter. Unless the cripple hammer sneaks up in some crazy manner, I'm going to be buying a couple R5s and moving back to Canon bodies. Salivating.
I expect every camera coming out will have some basic video capabilities - it is the market we are in.no, Canon will not. At least not if you ask most of the forum users here. And no, you are not allowed to even ask. ;-)
I would suspect that the extra costs of maintaining a different product line, packaging, etc., etc., would make the camera less profitable even if they charged the same price. If they charged a bit less for it, they might pick up a few more sales, but hardly enough to cover the extra costs plus the discount.
i don't believe that for 1 minute. A company like Canon that is willing and able to make and sell about 50 different SKUs (including various kit packages) of darn low end crop sensor Rebels, priced between 299 and 899 ... should definitely be able to make 2 or 3 versions of an R5 priced between 2499 and 5999 per body. With and without video capturing.
i don't believe that for 1 minute. A company like Canon that is willing and able to make and sell about 50 different SKUs (including various kit packages) of darn low end crop sensor Rebels, priced between 299 and 899 ... should definitely be able to make 2 or 3 versions of an R5 priced between 2499 and 5999 per body. With and without video capturing.
But can they make an R5 with a lower price and lower video specs without said body being firmware hacked to deliver full 8k? Personally I think it's dangerous and stupid for any manufacturer to distinguish based on firmware. It's almost guaranteed to be hacked. And I don't see Canon manufacturing a separate R5 sensor or DIGIC board.
Then again...yes Canon, please ship two R5's. One at a lower price point with all the same hardware but firmware limited video to, say, 4k30. I promise I won't hack it
Removing the items you listed will reduce the BOM cost of the camera by about 2-3$ max. Making it a utterly pointless excersice. Literally everything in that's needed for video is already going to be in the camera whether you want it or not. Or are you under some impression that 20FPS stills shototing is any different to video other than way the data is ultimatly stored? High speed stills shooting actaully needes more processing power since the camera needs to constaly recalculate the exposure between every shot.to my knowledge no Canon 1 series / 1DC was ever hacked. Canon tolerated a bit of Magic Lantern at the lower end, but that was it.
I also advocate some smart "hardware differentiation". No audio amps, no speakers, no mics, no mic jack, no HDMI connector and horror of horrors, no headphone jack on the "pure stills version". Then the hybrid video folks can hack firmware all they want. LOL
Calling the 5D lower end seems a bit of a stretch.to my knowledge no Canon 1 series / 1DC was ever hacked. Canon tolerated a bit of Magic Lantern at the lower end, but that was it.
Of course they are able to do that. I don't know why they would, but yes, if the CEO demanded it in damn the torpedos manner, they could. They supposedly make a lot of their money off Rebels and now the M series. It makes sense to cover a lot of waterfront with them. I bought my first Rebel as an impulse purchase when I went into a store to look at washing machines. I mainly learned from it that I needed a better Rebel to do what I wanted, so I got a T3i and bought more lenses over time. What I wanted to do increased by $10,000+ over the coming years, much of that since I have been coming to this board.i don't believe that for 1 minute. A company like Canon that is willing and able to make and sell about 50 different SKUs (including various kit packages) of darn low end crop sensor Rebels, priced between 299 and 899 ... should definitely be able to make 2 or 3 versions of an R5 priced between 2499 and 5999 per body. With and without video capturing.
Removing the items you listed will reduce the BOM cost of the camera by about 2-3$ max. Making it a utterly pointless excersice. Literally everything in that's needed for video is already going to be in the camera whether you want it or not. Or are you under some impression that 20FPS stills shototing is any different to video other than way the data is ultimatly stored? High speed stills shooting actaully needes more processing power since the camera needs to constaly recalculate the exposure between every shot.
It makes sense to cover a lot of waterfront with them.
all fine and dandy. But the little hardware modifications would very effectively protect against firmware hacks. That way hybrid users could be charged 10000 or 2000 more for the additional functionality over stills only. As should be.
Except, it shouldn't be. You seem to be under the impression that recording video requires some sort of gold plated encoder chip that costs thousands. It doesn't. The cost to make your mythical stills camera is nearly the same as the cost to make the same camera with video. But you don't even have to take my word for it. Canon has already told you. The original 5D cost $3299. With the Mark II, they added all the video functionality and the cost was $3499.
So, that is Canon saying that all of the hardware and R&D to add the complete video solution from scratch costs $200.[..]
where It makes sense to differentiate might depend on the price volume curve among other things.It makes at least as much sense to cover different usage scenarios, capability sets (stills, video, stills+video) and pricepoints between 2499 and 6999 with more than 2 cameras (R5 and 1DX III + future R1 ).