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

[TexPhoto]

Considering 3rd party software can be added to a 50D to shoot video with a Canon that was never designed for it, It does not seem like the software or hardware could be adding that much to the cost of the camera.

Also the video capabilities have added large numbers of sales to these DSLRs that they would have not had anyway. The 5DII then 7D were runaway hits in large part because they had video when other cameras did not. So without it, and thus fewer sales, camera prices may have been higher. Profits for Canon certainly would have been lower, and subsequent cameras and lenses more expensive.

 

[illogict]

Once you have LiveView (and I doubt many people would want that removed, no matter how vocal they are about video), video is nothing than recording that feed. Adding a sound chip, a mic and a speaker is not much at all hardware-wise.
Software-wise, you mostly need to code that h264 encoder -- once it's done, you can just reuse that for every other product. Obviously, Canon already had that for the compacts and video cameras, thus no need to recode it. So what's missing? Some UI and polish.
Video came basically at no cost for Canon. Why bother? That's a no-brainer.

 

[elflord]

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.

Well, what do you mean by "free" ? It's not free to develop, but that's not the same as saying that it makes the shipped product more expensive.

You're welcome to buy a Leica if you don't want to "waste money on video". But they cost more (even though they don't "waste money" on video).

The total R&D is not free, but from that you need to subtract sunk costs (R&D already spent on prior models, or allocated to different models like dedicated video cameras) to get R&D spent. Then you have net R&D costs. But if that feature results in an increase in sales, the extra sales dollars could exceed the net R&D costs.

So in terms of cost per body, the "economy of sale" factor could actually trump any "advantages" of avoiding "wasting money on video". That's at least part of why Leica bodies are not cheaper than Canon (even though they don't "waste money on video")

In terms of manufacturing cost per body, the difference is tiny as has already been pointed out -- so it all boils down to impact on sales versus impact on costs. I put it to you that not only it does in fact result in lower costs per unit shipped -- but that a low cost full frame body would probably not be viable today without video.

 

[sanj]

So much speculation without any solid inside knowledge.

 

[elflord]

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

Similar logic applies to this too though -- you're dealing with marginal cost of debugging and testing. Once you have software that works on several platforms (or bodies), the marginal cost of adding an additional platform is quite low. By the time they've got video working on the 5DII Rebel line and their 1DC, cost of adding it to 5DIII firmware can't be too bad. It probably cost them more to have it on the 5DII, but it's not clear that this made even that body a whole lot more expensive (was the D700 cheaper ?)

 

[elflord]

So much speculation without any solid inside knowledge.

Well, who are you saying is doing this speculation ? Some are insisting that video raises the cost of bodies but offer absolutely no evidence in support of this position. They have insisted that video "must" add to "costs".

The counter argument to this has little to do with "inside" knowledge, but everything to do with "solid knowledge". The counter argument is that gross costs are not the same as marginal costs, which are again not the same thing as price paid by the consumer, and that it is quite plausible that an increase in gross cost does not result in a price increase for the consumer. This argument does not depend on some proprietary knowledge, it is a simple mathematical fact.

In response to this the complainers simply stamp their feet and ignore the counter to their argument (because they don't understand it perhaps ?) and insist that video "is not free". We agree that it must cost something to develop support for video, but no-one has made the case that it makes cameras more expensive. Assuming that it "must be so" really doesn't cut it.

The empirical evidence really does not appear to be on the side of the complainers, as there appears to be next to no correlation in the market place between having video and price of the body (except perhaps that really expensive stills cameras generally DO NOT have video features)

 

[KeithR]

What Illogict The Enlightener said...

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

This horse has been beaten to death many times before and it doesn't change the simple fact that hardware and software costs have almost nothing to do with the final price. What determines that is the market and what it can bear. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[cayenne]

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

Well, the cost of the software/debugging is likely more processor specific....but that would be the case not only for video, but for the still shot resources. Since most of the hardware 'can' support video, it is likely little added on.

And if you code correctly, in a modular manner...etc...it can more easily be ported for different processors..of which I think Canon works with mainly what, like 2x different processors?

cayenne

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

Yes, but it is essentially the same for all the cameras they sell, tweaked for a particular model, so spreading a million dollars over several million bodies might add 25 cents. The 5D MK II paid off any initial firmware development cost years ago, so we are now dealing with incremental costs that will be spread out over the next 3 years. A million dollard sounds like a lot but the very high numbers of bodies to be sold make it a low cost per unit, and the additional sales due to video bring in far more profit, probably 1000X whatever the cost is.

Like many here, I don't use the video features, but I do recognize that it brings resale value to my camera, and reduces my cost due to larger production runs.

The cost to Canon of developing the totally new AF system used in the 1D X and 5D MK III was likely 10X any developmental costs for upgrading the video.

 

[zim]

I have no problem with video on my camera even though I’ve never used it. I tend to go with the better to have it just in case than not there when I could have really used it scenario.
The only thing I’m not clear on though (and what would change my mind) is does having it compromise the design of the sensor to the detriment of stills? if not then I don’t see the problem even if it does increase the price of the camera. Is there a definitive answer to the stills quality question?

 

[paul13walnut5]

When live view was fitted then the capability was pretty much there.

The 5D2 added a new sensor and processor to the 5D spec so it's difficult to see what cost the video feature added.

The 7D added a new a new sensor, AF system, pentaprism, wireless flash and twin image processors, and a dedicated AF processor to the 50D spec, as well as video, so it's hard to deduce what extra cost the video function indiviudually added.

The 500D added a new sensor and LCD screen to the 450D spec, so again it's hard to isolate what cost difference.

I don't use the PIC modes. Never have, never will. I don't use spot metering. Unlikely to. I don't use AWB. Not likely to. I don't use custom profiles. Unlikely to.

Canon don't make a camera specifically for me, but they make several that do what I want, so I put up with the redundancy.

I do use video, for my work. And as great as it is, the video is compromised by the still sensor roots, not the other way about. The AA filter is the wrong strength for the ultimate video resolution. The colour sampling pulldown isn't great for video (4.2.0 where 4.2.2 is the norm, and 4.4.4 preferable) the sensor read-off is wrong (very slow version of frame transfer, rather than the preferable and switchable frame / interline transfer FIT type) causing the infamous jello shutter.

So if anything, stills considerations compromise the video capability, but then, it is a stills camera first and foremost.

That said, used with realistic expectations and sensible techniques I prefer shooting on my EOS camera for many types of job than on my 2/3" ENG camera.

Back in the day when I used an EOS 3 film camera, I loved ECF. Some folk hated it. I could never work out why they just didn't use it. I would swap PIC modes AWB and spot metering for XLR inputs and a headphone out, but how popular would that be?

You will find it difficult to buy a camera without video these days, so regardless of the answers you come up with, thats how it is.

 

[Aglet]

Video's a feature I would not miss on my cameras and would prefer it not be there.

There's very likely some compromises made in the front end electronics to perform the high speed data acquisition required by video that may affect overall image quality for stills.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? Even a rebel has so many features and options that a person coming from a p&s. Photography isn't cheap, whether your a hobby person or aspire to make money with it, it ain't cheap - with that said though there are cheaper options. I mean, I highly doubt that the vast majority of us here on the forum when buying their first setup said ---not sure if i should buy (fill in blank) for $7000. No, most of us either went from film camera to digital, or, a cheap P&S to a rebel or nikons equivalent. From there, add a flash, a few better lenses, go shoot...go shoot...love it...go shoot, then eventually after time outgrow what we have and upgrade.

I know its getting old school on you here, but we can really break it down to ultra cheap. If you really have no money, go build yourself a pin hole camera!

 

[elflord]

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

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too.

Yeah, that part was kind of odd. There are also older bodies with no video that are dirt cheap for those who don't need video -- a 40D is about $400, a rebel XS is about $250.

Cost of glass pretty quickly dwarfs price of the body.

 

[cayenne]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice. Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2. Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one. Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii. Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car). Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL

 

[elflord]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

Video saved Canon's bacon, with the 5D Mk II. That camera would have sold about half as many units if it hadn't had video, and the extra funds allowed Canon to upgrade the Mk III extensively. Remember, R&D is booked as a percentage of sales, and video more than doubled sales of the Mk II. It wouldn't surprise me if it actually tripled them.

Increased sales lowers costs, so in other words, video has lowered the cost of bodies. Besides, video is pretty much "free," because Live View is an extremely useful photographic tool. Once you have Live View, all it takes is a bit of code and a 10¢ microphone to get video.

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

 

[briansquibb]

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

There are always costs - perhaps you mean that the costs are outweighed by increased profits from additional sales?