Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

[ScottyP]

Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

 

[Terry Rogers]

I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.

 

[ScottyP]

I suspect that adding video to dslrs adds very little to the overall cost of the unit other than adding a mic/headphone jack and what it costs to develope the internal software to process the video. Capturing video off the sensor is basically a matter of software with almost no additional hardware costs.

Maybe, I don't know. If so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al certainly don't point that out in their promotional materials. Kind of the opposite, actually.....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It more likely lowers the price, since sales of the 5D MK II were boosted by a huge amount due to the video, and more sales allows for reduced production costs (or more profit). P&S have had video for many years.

Video is here to stay, the sales of a body without video would be small indeed, because, even if you don't use it, resale would be very tough for a body that few want.

 

[ScottyP]

Well, the price increases must be due to something. The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it. But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable. You must pick one system and you buy into it with lenses. Heavily. Once you are in, it is very difficult and expensive to change trains. Perhaps then it is the lack of robust competition.

 

[7enderbender]

Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

 

[kdsand]

I don't believe thus far that video is raising the cost of bodies.

I have some concern there will be an increased generalization of design.

The up coming 24 & 28mm 2.8 prime lenses with I.S. and the new silent focusing motors seem geared & aimed solely at improving video production. With these revised lenses there seems little to justify the increased price for photographers.

 

[elflord]

Well, the price increases must be due to something. The "yen to dollars" thing so often quoted is no excuse either, because Nikon is equally (or if anything more) purely Japanese as Canon, and they seem just a bit cheaper as I see it. But of course they don't really compete directly in the ordinary sense of the word, because their lenses are not interchangable.

Right, and if you priced out comparable setups, Canon doesn't look so bad unless you were planning to use a $200- zoom on a $3000 body. The Nikon glass is generally more expensive. While the whiners have been whining about the latest Canon bodies, Canon has been quietly updating already first rate glass.

The exchange rate drives costs. Prices are driven by supply and demand, which is influenced but not directly related to costs. But increased costs do need to be absorbed somehow -- either through higher prices on the bodies, the glass, more sales on those, or more revenue through other channels. Otherwise it comes out of profits, but if too much comes out of profits, they become losses (e.g. Sony), and if the company lose too much, they eventually go out of business (Kodak, Pentax, etc)

I think you've got this kind of back to front -- it's not that Canon are abruptly becoming expensive, it's that Nikon are using aggressive pricing on their new bodies to increase their market share (at the expense of Canon). They are probably counting on their D800 buyers to also go out and buy (for example) their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses (which are more expensive than the Canon versions)

 

[elflord]

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

You could always go out and buy a Leica, then you wouldn't have to feel that you'd wasted your money on video.

Which video features of the 5DII do you find detrimental to your stills shooting ?

 

[briansquibb]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

 

[RC]

Although I don't care about video and would rather see that technology and the cost of it applied toward still functions and technology, I'll bet adding two lines of bodies (ie 5D3 with and without video) would cost canon more to produce thus those costs being passed onto us consumers.

Multiple production lines, some parts would be different, two sets of firmware, marketing costs, packaging, and so on would all have to be accounted for.

I'm not a production expert and maybe im wrong, but I'm betting it is more cost effective and efficient having just one body with all features.

 

[PeterJ]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

Maybe, Mt Spokane makes a good point though about increased sales of the same hardware for video pushing up volumes and dropping costs. It wouldn't really surprise me if the two things largely offset each other and it ends up being pretty much zero added cost for still photographers.

 

[ScottyP]

Sorry but it is hard to accept that the video capability is free. Whether it is hardware of software or (probably) both, they market it as a selling point, so it must cost something.

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

 

[Cornershot]

Other than adding a mic, I doubt it adds significantly to the price. You can add Magic Lantern to a 50D which will add video function to a camera that was never offered with it. Besides, many professional still photographers use the video capability because it's often requested by clients. All of the editorial photographers that I've worked with do some video as well as stills when covering news and events.

 

[kdsand]

It just goes back to the old what the market will bare. Perhaps you could reason an opposite extreme = socialist state that could produce 1 product line dirt cheap. I'm glad that's not the case here .
Then again if you reason that a company must charge as much as they possibly can for their product. Then likewise you must reason that consumers must endeavor to pay as little as possible. We must after all keep the universe in balance.

 

[gmrza]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

It is probably true that video capability does add to the cost of the software running on cameras in general, however, I am sure that a lot of the code is reused across multiple systems - it would be crazy for manufacturers to code everything from the ground up for each body. Sure there is some code that is specific to the 5D3, but I am also certain that there is more code that is common across all EOS bodies. The same goes for the hardware components, like processors - most of the R&D cost is probably shared across Canon's entire line of cameras.

I suspect that the cost benefits of a greater target market (more scale) due to video capability are greater than the additional cost of supporting video in each body.

 

[PeterJ]

Anyway I think if we all agree the the cost is something like +/- $200 at the extremes the OP Scotty used the example of a $3,500 camera possibly having $1,200 worth of video functionality. I assume he's disappointed with the price of a 5D3 and wonders if it would be a $2300 camera minus video. If it became a $3,300 option I dare say many / most peple would pay the extra 5% odd extra just in case they ever needed it and because of a likely larger resale market. But personally I'd say the 5% more would still be at the upper bounds of possibility.

 

[briansquibb]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

It is probably true that video capability does add to the cost of the software running on cameras in general, however, I am sure that a lot of the code is reused across multiple systems - it would be crazy for manufacturers to code everything from the ground up for each body. Sure there is some code that is specific to the 5D3, but I am also certain that there is more code that is common across all EOS bodies. The same goes for the hardware components, like processors - most of the R&D cost is probably shared across Canon's entire line of cameras.

I suspect that the cost benefits of a greater target market (more scale) due to video capability are greater than the additional cost of supporting video in each body.

The real cost of the software is in the debugging and testing it - which would have to be model specific

 

[once]

Is it raising the cost of bodies? Probably, yes, to a degree.

Is it wasted for many shooters? Probably, yes, to a degree.

It seems you won't be swayed from your perspective--at least not easily...

Consider that I think this is one of many gripes that characterize the situation Canon is in. They make products to satisfy as many people as possible, but their primary market is...? I don't know, maybe they sell just as much to professionals as hobbyists?

Surely, they have done a little bit of research before deciding to spend millions of dollars on R&D for their cameras. Which is probably less than 5% of their budget, but anyway.

But then any time a new product comes out, each group has their criticisms.

So, what to do?

Anyway...I would tend to be on the other side of your argument.

Do you really think the 5D III would be $1200 less for a camera without the video features? The technology is not likely that expensive, considering that it had already largely been available in the previous version. And, you can get a T3i now for what...$600? So...historically speaking, we're talking about unprecedented value and inexpensiveness for recording HD video on a DSLR.

So I doubt the video features are much of a big deal.

Also, consider what is the most expensive part of a camera. Isn't it the sensor? (I am not sure) I highly doubt video software is enough to command 33% of the cost of a camera. We're talking about 2 megapixels, right? That's not asking much, at this point.

Anyway, it would be a nightmare at this point to separate the two. Can you imagine? I'm sure some people would be very pleased that you would have to buy an entirely separate setup just to record the 2 minutes of video you might want to (or in the case of professionals, you have to) record.

Oh wait, for those who really want to spend some more money, you can spend a whole lot more to feel like even more of a professional! You can pay as much as 20 times more for the body, and 40 times more for a lens. Lots of people are surely happy about this.

But I'm glad for all these developments. Now the serious HD video is a separate R&D budget, and any technology that may trickle down will not be at more than a marginal cost added to the DSLR.

It's ironic to think...I mean this happens often, right? New product comes out, vocal minority gets upset about any number of things.

These numbers are likely off--surely they are inaccurate:
Before 5D, a full frame DSLR cost...$5000? Everyone's happy...
After 5D II it cost...$3300? Oh wait...did the price of the camera drop, or stay the same, and they added video? Unacceptable!
After 5D III it cost...$3500?
And now you can get a full frame body for $2000.

The initial price seems to have stayed the same over time, so I am sort of glad all the extra features haven't added any further cost to the bodies. But, I do not like the price of the 5D III, for the record, Canon.

Also, before 5D II, HD video would cost something like $1200 for a separate camera--if you got the point and shoot version.

It was $2500 to start, or maybe more for a "real" camera, and I have no idea how much extra lenses would have been.

Are you saying you'd want to have this? As above, you now have that.

It's funny that more than a few are suggesting that video is messing with the DSLR budget. I get it: historically, any new technology or improvement meets with dissatisfaction. But before 5D II, a lot of people would never have considered spending $2500 to get an extra body for video only.

And after 5D III, a small number of people are wishing it was like it was "back in the day."

What features do you imagine are missing from the 5D III? Do you want 14 fps, carbon fiber shutters, full carbon fiber and basalt body, in a smaller package? 71 point all cross point brain-controlled autofocus? Because although I think they could have included "a few" more features, I don't think they could have included "a lot" more features. Look to the 1D X to see what more they could include, and to the...eh, the 5D II to see how much less it could be, with less features. Though that last part would be wildly inaccurate, because it's already been out for so long.

My take: Canon put video in because a lot of people seemed to want it at the time. They also had the benefit of finding that after including it, they increased their market share by >10%, or whatever the fact may be. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think they'd like to step away from that. I certainly hope they don't!

I feel like they actually added it at marginal cost, not even knowing what would happen. This is one of those things..."Well it only costs 5%, but...more people will buy it!"

In fact, maybe that extra market share helped Canon to allow more budget for R&D--which I imagine will remain the same or go even lower for video, now that they have separate video cameras. That would explain all this stuff coming out...

Now about those new lens prices...

 

[once]

Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

Also, as of this year, conventional HD in itself is no longer the standard of super serious.

And it's not that they're forcing you to buy two completely different things at the same time. It's a classic business case of, "how cheaply can we add something that will allow us to sell a lot more?" HD is a perfect case--especially in the case of the 5D.

Photographic technology both has and hasn't changed a lot since the 1980s...but I would say it's definitely gotten a lot more accessible.

HD is a good distraction, anyway. When the 1D...(XXX?) comes out and we have double the frame rate...I mean do we really need 30 fps mechanical shutters?

Where is the technology headed? Because although there have been a lot of improvements, there haven't been a lot of breakthrough new features. And I think that's because...what more is there? And, what more is there that we can do, while keeping the price the same?