derekmccoy said:
Different pricing tiers should be differentiated based on features that actually cost money to implement, not software or even stuff that costs next to nothing like a headphone jack or UHS2.
Magnesium bodies, weather sealing, more modern ICs, better LCDs, more robust shutter mechs - thats what costs more to put in a camera.
In the case of the 5D4 and 6D2, they are being held back by software/firmware. Magic Lantern proves that the hardware is more than capable. It's Canon's decision to not port firmware features into those cameras to force buyers up to more expensive models. Users can see through this and it's not cool at all. Car analogies don't apply here, it's all software.
As for the sensor, it would have been completely acceptable to keep the same 20MP resolution but with an on-board ADC or whatever it is that gives it the 5D4 and the 80D extra DR. Instead they opted to twist peoples' arms into spending more knowing they have an investment in the glass. You want 4K? we could add 10 lines of code to the firmware....... But no, you need to could fork out for a C200.
Arguing the opposite is just apologetic bias for Canon's shady practice as of late. This is not the same Canon from the 5D2 days.
As someone who has worked in both manufacturing and in software development, I could not disagree more.
No successful company that manufactures devices bases its pricing formula on cost of materials + markup. Every company that wants to succeed needs to consider the cost of running the entire company, including research, marketing, storage, unsold inventories and markdowns, cost of capital, unprofitable products, executive pay, technology licensing and a thousand other factors that may be fixed or variable costs.
For example, Sensor X costs $30 million and 8 years to design. The cost of manufacture is $30 per sensor. But the pricing of Sensor X is not based on the $30; it's based on the number of units of Sensor X that can be sold in its lifetime, and making enough money to pay for Sensor Y. Plus, paying for Sensor Z, which failed 3 years ago.
The reality and practicality of it is that every manufacturer will sell mass-produced goods for less, and goods for incrementally smaller target markets for exponentially more. The reality of it is that professionals will pay much more than enthusiasts, who will pay much ore than those who are looking for baseline functionality, and why shouldn't a company capitalize on that?
The mission of a company is not to give you stuff for what it costs to make plus some small profit. It's to maximize its returns to its stakeholders -- which is a worthy mission, because it's the only way that the company will be incentivized to make new stuff for you. Competition balances that against what you get and are asked to pay, and therefore, even if you are a Nikon or Sony fan, you should be happy that Canon is there building cameras -- or vice versa.
There are other goods like prescription drugs which dramatically illustrate this whole principle. The cost of manufacturing most drugs is very low. Yet, the cost of research is high, and the goal of drug companies is to make profit -- which is not bad, because if drug companies don't profit, they won't develop new drugs. Some very new treatments can cost thousands of dollars every month, while other life-saving drugs that cost the same to produce can cost pennies a pill.
On the software end, obviously, cost of materials are nearly zero, and certainly identical for nearly all products. The argument that everything should be sold for about what it costs to make -- well, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Keep in mind, I certain don't have a problem with the notion that the 6D2 just doesn't have the features you want, at the price you want, or that Nikon or Fuji or Sony or whomever has a product has a product that fits you better. I think that's a healthy part of the competitive process. It's just the whole notion that product X should is priced too high because its materials are not much more than those in product Y just doesn't hold any water with me, because that just isn't how the world works.
. I also have a complete system in Canon and won't switch to any other brand in the foreseeable future. Sometimes I just wish they push a little harder I guess.
.
