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

[paul13walnut5]

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

Good enough for the Avengers and Black Swan though @Orangutan

I found the 5D2 impossible to shoot on without all the bells and whistles, and the bells and whistles defeated the point of the small form, also depth of field was so unforgiving, and the rolling shutter is much worse on the 5D2 than anything thats came since, including the 7D, 550D 600D.

The 7D also has live HDMI output at 1080, which for a long time made it the best option for folk wanting hidef live monitoring. In fact when I bought my 7D it was the only DSLR with a dedicated PAL /25p mode.

And I'm not a serious enthusiast. I actually get paid. No DSLR is going to replace a conventional ENG camera for many types of job, but for some they offer awesome bang per buck.

And whichever method of pixel binning (the 3x3 would worry me, as this then takes no account of the bayer pattern, which would actually cause more false colouration) if the AA filter isn't right (and it isn't on a camera optimised for 18, 21 or 22MP) then you still need to do a little work in post, which along with selective use of MarvelsDSLR plug in (free) irons out most moire problems.

 

[Orangutan]

Good enough for the Avengers and Black Swan though @Orangutan

Granted, there are exceptions, but it's probably not enough to affect the price.

 

[preppyak]

For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand. If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

I'd say you nailed it...though, I think the 7D might fall into category 1 simply because it hits a market that wasn't really covered in any way (action sports). To get a weather-proofed body that is very portable with great IQ; it basically didn't exist. Now they have 7D's (and GoPro's), and its proliferated that market a good deal.

But that is less because of the IQ, it's more for the build quality in such an affordable camera.

 

[unfocused]

Apparently we've got three lines of reasoning:

1. Basic video features increase the cost to produce the camera enough to affect end-user price. This one is likely false, but ultimately unknowable. (marginal cost to add basic video is low, and overall sales would suffer without video)

2. High-quality video features alter design decisions, resulting in compromise of still features. Maybe, but it's Canon's game and they can do what they want. The market will sort this out.

3. High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in higher end-user prices. If true, this is music to Canon's ears, and this would be a great business decision. Like it or hate it, we're stuck with it.

For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand. If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

These are just opinions and speculations, I have no hard data.

You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

 

[AvTvM]

Granted, there are exceptions, but it's probably not enough to affect the price.

Ibelieve demand for video-use 7D / 5D2s though a minority of purchasers has still been high enough to impact the price.

We would know for sure, had Canon sold these cams in "still photography version" and a "Video-enabled" version for twice the price. These DSLRs would have still been dirt cheap for professional video use. In that model, Canon would have made those users pay, who are actually using the video crap, rather than the majority of purchasers who hardly ever use their DSLRs for video.

In the current model stills photographers are actually subsidizing commercial video use and get cameras that are not optimized for still photography but for video use.

 

[preppyak]

In the current model stills photographers are actually subsidizing commercial video use and get cameras that are not optimized for still photography but for video use.

Consider all the upgrades that differentiate the 5dII from the 5dIII and tell me which were critical to videographers...and which were critical to a stills shooter. You'd really have to be insane to say its not optimized for stills, since the only video specific upgrade is the choice of video codecs.

6fps, 61pt AF, a processor dedicated to AF, hell, even the MP aren't what a videographer would demand normally (more or less would be more ideal). It has no XLR inputs, it has no ND filters, no focus peaking, no zebras, I could go on and on. If the 5DIII was an 8MP camera that did 4k video (like Sony's FS-700), you might have a point.

If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X

 

[Orangutan]

You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Unfocused, I'm basically on your side, and I did not miss that argument: I was just re-iterating my understanding of the viewpoints of the "yes" camp. One one hand, more sales drive down per-unit cost by spreading fixed costs across a larger number of units. On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit. E.g. iPads. Does it actually do this? I don't know, and I doubt we have access to data to prove one way or another. We only know that per-unit production cost goes down with increased sales.

My main argument against the "yes it does" camp is that there is no reason to believe that video adds significantly to the R&D and manufacturing costs. Any price increase would be due to market forces, and you can't expect any company to forgo extra profit to accommodate a minority of purists.

Personally, I believe the 5D3 was designed as a wedding/event camera, and it hits that spot pretty nicely.

In the end, we just don't know the answer, so it's not worth fretting over.

 

[unfocused]

You are missing the most important and obvious option:

High-quality video features drive up consumer demand, resulting in more sales and reducing the per unit price to still photographers.

Unfocused, I'm basically on your side, and I did not miss that argument: I was just re-iterating my understanding of the viewpoints of the "yes" camp. One one hand, more sales drive down per-unit cost by spreading fixed costs across a larger number of units. On the other hand, end-user price *could* hypothetically go up if demand exceeds supply, resulting in higher per-unit profit. E.g. iPads. Does it actually do this? I don't know, and I doubt we have access to data to prove one way or another. We only know that per-unit production cost goes down with increased sales.

My main argument against the "yes it does" camp is that there is no reason to believe that video adds significantly to the R&D and manufacturing costs. Any price increase would be due to market forces, and you can't expect any company to forgo extra profit to accommodate a minority of purists.

Personally, I believe the 5D3 was designed as a wedding/event camera, and it hits that spot pretty nicely.

In the end, we just don't know the answer, so it's not worth fretting over.

Oh yeah, I realize that you get it. Wasn't trying to imply otherwise. And, like you, I agree the "cost" of video isn't worth bothering with. I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet.

And yes, I absolutely agree with you that the 5DIII was designed with a very specific market in mind and seems to be succeeding quite nicely with that market.

 

[Orangutan]

I just have a hard time getting past my compulsion to correct things when I see people getting something wrong on the internet.

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[AvTvM]

If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X

actually I like that find that pricing differential perfectly right.

And I want Canon to offer the same choice between a stills-oriented model (price = 100%) and a video-optimized model (@ 200% price) also at the 5D, 7D and rebel level.

I don't see any reason, why Canon does not make reasonably cheap large-sensored "real video-cams" without mirror, without mirrorbox, without OVF, with video-optimized features galore ... why oh why does this have to be implemented in stills-optimized DSLRs of all things?

If Canon would at last bring an FF mirrorless to market ... and i fthat thing also had video in it - then I would say, alright, in a mirrorless camera, video really is a "most natural thing", but certainly not in DSLRs. So while we stills shooters only get DSLRs, give us at least an option for "lowest price possible" stills-only DSLRs and charge thos, that need and want video EXTRA for an EXTRA feature.

 

[elflord]

As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?

 

[briansquibb]

As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd,

You've got it backwards. If the stills users are the cheapskates and the video users are the ones with the big bankroll, the rational thing for Canon to do is make an expensive video camera, and a cheaper stills camera (perhaps even stills only to force the video crowd to buy the expensive model). In that case, who is subsidizing who ?

I can't believe we're still whining about the cost of this thing -- it amounts to whining about the laws of supply and demand. Anything else we'd like to complain about ? Third law of thermodynamics ? Newton's law ? Mathematical induction ?

I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....

 

[elflord]

I wouldn't say still photographers are cheapskates - they support the MF segment for instance. No video there I notice ....

Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine. I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

The real picture is more nuanced than this -- there are a variety of stills users with different budgets and requirements.

 

[AvTvM]

Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine. I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

I agree with you, that Canon's product line-up does not make much sense.

Why are their dedicated video-cams so bloody expensive? I am talking about the Cxxx-line. These things must be way cheaper to build than a 5D3 ... no mirrorbox+contents, no prism, no Phase-AF system ... all fairly expensive components requiring a lot of very careful and precise adjustment during manufacturing.

Why is there no "entry"-level C100 with video capabilities at the level of a 5D 3 and costs @ around USD/Euro 2000?

The only product where I see some sense for convergence stills+video is the 1D X ... fast tool for image jounalists, sports professionals. But then again, why on earth did Canon announce a 1D C ... instead of a C600 or whatever number that would be so much miore suitable to (hi end) video and could be manufactured for a lot less money? And why would somebody prefer a clumsy DSLR-body over a video-optimized camera to shoot hi-end video/cine stuff? Just does not make any sense to me. The only thing that makes sense to me is that video-purchasers get a choice between PL and EF lens mount on the heigher-end gear. If Canon wants to call all their imaging gear "EOS", that does not bother me, although I fail to see compelling reasons to do so.

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature? Make video users pay a reasonble amount more for the video feature, rather than charging everybody for it, whether you want it or not. For those, needing both - stills and video - that would still be a lot cheaper than buying a dedicated video cam plus a stills DSLR.

Since Nikon is selling the D800, a better stills camera with similar video capability for less than what the 5D 3 costs, the following price points would seem about right to me:
5D3 stills only - USD/€ 2500
5D3 stills + video [the one we got) - USD/€ 2,900 ... matching D800 price
7D II stills only - ca. USD/€ 1700
7D II stills + video - ca. € 2000

 

[elflord]

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price. It doesn't work well as a way to do price discrimination either because some stills-only people are prepared to spend big $, so they gain some revenue by letting in the cheapskates, but they lose sales dollars from those who would have been willing to pay the higher price. The right way to do price discrimination is to ensure that those who are willing to spend more don't buy the cheaper product.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

 

[briansquibb]

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?

 

[AvTvM]

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

well I expect Canon will have to do some studying of supply and demand curves soon. Once the initial demand for the 5D3 is fulfilled, they will have to lower the price quickly below the D800. I believe it will already happen in the pre-christmas season this year (2012).

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them?

Um, honestly I don't think this would affect the price of the 5D3 much. The video is basically a free tack on. It's clear that Canon felt that they could not justify putting NO video (since the 5D2 had it), but it's totally nerfed below its capabilities(it's processor is capable of at least X2 the bitrate). The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.

 

[Marsu42]

The real video/stills hybrid will be about $5000, and probably called the 5D-C.

... or 5d3 with magic lantern

 

[ScottyP]

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?

Kind of funny, but kind of true too. Look at printers. Most printer makers (presumably Canon too) sell printers cheap, at little or no profit. They make their money on the ink cartridges over time.