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

[kdsand]

video is definitely here to stay and that is fine by me.
I just do not want to have concessions - we pay a ton of money for this high end equipment and do our best to hone our skills yes it is a skill so any little thing that sacrifices any potential advancement is a big deal. If it comes down to it have 1 product optimized for video and 1 optimize for stills.
Perhaps in a way you could say I pinch pennies then again I am investing my money over the long term.
Having the option to use video would not even be there if the still photographers we're not driving the development/demand from the start.

If it photographers were willing to say "fine whatever that's fine" :-X then we'd be in a worse pickle right now - we have to keep looking for the highest quality best performing equipment that we can possibly get it and if we did not do not --- well then we would see fewer and fewer advancements........... :-\

Hey you know - call it what it is. I value the highest quality and best performance I can get it. So every little concession that I find is gonna make me squeal louder and louder.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

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

You first. Removing video will shift the demand curve down. Equilibrium price will be lower. That being said, the video on the 5D3 isn't that great, so I'm not sure how big of a shift you'd actually get.

 

[elflord]

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).

Yes, of course -- in early production supply is limited, so they can price it higher. They will probably lower the price once they can make them fast enough to get them on the shelves.

 

[elflord]

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

You first. Removing video will shift the demand curve down. Equilibrium price will be lower. That being said, the video on the 5D3 isn't that great, so I'm not sure how big of a shift you'd actually get.

The supply curve is more or less flat, slightly downward sloping (more units shipped reduces price per unit). The reason that the supply curve behaves like this has already been discussed in this thread (it basically boils down to the fact that R&D costs don't depend on number of units shipped, and at least in the long run production capacity is not pushed anywhere near the limits)

The demand curve is of course downward sloping. So when you shift the demand curve up, the curves cross further along the x axis (= more sales). Because the supply curve is more or less flat (or slightly downward sloping), the new crossing point is at the same point or further down on the y axis (lower price). The reverse happens when you shift the demand curve down.

If the supply curve was steadily upward sloping (e.g. production capacity or availability of raw materials is limited), your analysis would work. Where it breaks down is that the supply curve does not go up steeply.

 

[DB]

I think you should all stop speculating and/or guessing and read Canon Inc.'s latest annual report & accounts:

http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2011/report2011.pdf

Of $17.4 billion in Total Operating Expenses in FY 2011 a total of $4bn was spent on R&D (actually $3,946 million) across all 3 major divisions: Office, Consumer (DSLR incl.) and Industrial, but if you read p.48 on R&D, most was spent on non-Consumer stuff. Total 2011 R&D was 8.7% of Net Sales

Last year Canon spent > $1 billion on 'Advertising' alone. Further 'Selling, Marketing and Administrative' expenses totaled another $12 billion. Of the 3 major components of cost identified by Canon:- Labour, R&D, and Marketing/Advertising, Research & Development is less than one quarter.

R&D is dwarfed by Selling/Marketing/Advertising budget. Same goes for all major multinational corporations (e.g. 'Big-Pharma' spend one-tenth on R&D as they do on Marketing & Advertising).

The only mention on Consumer Business Unit R&D was the reduced need to make prototypes and the declining costs.

On the other hand, some 56% of Canon's US$4.8 billion 2011 Op profit came from Consumer (includes DSLR) business, yet that strategic business unit accounts for just 36% of sales. So selling Cameras is more profitable than selling other products in their other two divisions.

R&D has fallen in recent years e.g. in 2009 was 9.5% of Net Sales, the following year 2010 it fell to 8.5%.

Finally, read the key pages in the annual report, and you will see a clear trend. Fewer prototypes in Consumer Business, more R&D directed at Office & Industrial, boost the number of Marketing Subsidiaries (see page 101 - Marketing totally dominates, especially R&D), more products using overlapping technology (e.g. same sensor or same AF, same battery etc.), plus most of the sales growth in Non-Japan Asia and Emerging Markets (ie. not the Americas or Europe), so basic thrust is to sell more of existing technology to boost revenues.

Look at pages 51-52 where they discuss the apparent demand for higher MP in DSLR but instead emphasize the imperative to boost sales support in developing markets as the main priority etc ad nauseam ....

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Elflord, you're thinking of perfect competition. At worst this is oligopoly. Equilibrium is where Marginal Cost=Marginal revenue: Draw down to the x-axis to get Q, up to the demand curve to get P.

If you don't believe me, here is a simple analytical example:

Assume supply is flat (just like you said): Cost(Q)=10Q

Assume original linear demand: P=100-Q

New linear demand (after adding video): P=200-Q

Equilibrium price in the first case is 45

Equilibrium price in the second case is 105

That's monopoly, but it will be true in all cases where firms have pricing power(AKA: not perfect competition)

 

[Richard8971]

Here is an easy way to explain how and WHY my camera loses performance/features BECAUSE of video.

Let's go and buy a car...

You have 10 grand to spend and car "X" is 10 grand.

Car "X" is perfect in every way exept the color, you want the color changed/upgraded.

The sales manager explains that they cannot upgrade the color because it has 2 grand worth of stereo equipment installed and the color you want costs 2 grand.

You do not wish to have said stereo and will NEVER use it. Sales manager wishes he could change it but ALL cars come with the 2 grand stereo outfit and because of it they cannot give you a better color.

So you accept this and try to live with the fact that you hate and will never use the stereo and are stuck wishing for a better color.

I WANT a better "color" for my camera. Get it? The R/D and electronics/programming for video takes AWAY from better/upgraded hardware/better features because those options cost money, nothing more, nothing less. Canon chose to spend part of my hard earned money on VIDEO and not better features/upgraded hardware, something I did not ask for.

I was VERY happy with my XTi and 40D that DID NOT have video. Awesome cameras. I would have bought my 7D and 5D2 even if they never shot video. And based on what I just posted, I believe that my newest cameras suffer in features/hardware because of video. Nothing personal but video COSTS MONEY! MY money that could have been spent on better features.

Again, Canon please leave the DSLR alone. Just make a good video camera and a good still camera. People WILL buy what they want/need.

D

 

[wickidwombat]

A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

 

[briansquibb]

A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before

 

[wickidwombat]

A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before

HaHa but there is no more smitey smitey anymore mwahahahahahaha

 

[briansquibb]

A good analogy, however the REAL issue is not of cost but of compromised features to accomodate video
eg the stronger AA filter which sacrifices still sharpness to gain improved moire perfomance in video

Taking your life in your hands there Wicked - I got thoroughly beaten up suggesting that before

HaHa but there is no more smitey smitey anymore mwahahahahahaha

8) 8) 8) You mean I can be outspoken again without having to sit on the naughty chair : : :

 

[bycostello]

total waste for me....

 

[elflord]

Elflord, you're thinking of perfect competition. At worst this is oligopoly. Equilibrium is where Marginal Cost=Marginal revenue: Draw down to the x-axis to get Q, up to the demand curve to get P.

If you don't believe me, here is a simple analytical example:

Assume supply is flat (just like you said): Cost(Q)=10Q

Assume original linear demand: P=100-Q

New linear demand (after adding video): P=200-Q

Equilibrium price in the first case is 45

Equilibrium price in the second case is 105

That's monopoly, but it will be true in all cases where firms have pricing power(AKA: not perfect competition)

I'm not following this at all. If supply is flat (not linear and certainly not linear with a slope of 10), then Cost(Q) = 10 (not 10Q) So in the first example P = 100-Q, the curves cross where 10=100-Q, so Q = 90 and P = 10. Second example they cross at, P=200-Q = 10 = Cost(Q), so Q=190 and P = 10 (more sales, same price)

 

[paul13walnut5]

Bored now.

 

[AG]

Bored now.

I was bored 11 pages ago.

 

[elflord]

I WANT a better "color" for my camera. Get it? The R/D and electronics/programming for video takes AWAY from better/upgraded hardware/better features because those options cost money, nothing more, nothing less. Canon chose to spend part of my hard earned money on VIDEO and not better features/upgraded hardware, something I did not ask for.

We've beaten this to death already. They do add to the fixed costs. It does not follow that they also add to the marginal cost per unit manufactured, or the price paid by the consumer.

You can have a camera without video, but it costs more, not less. If you really don't want to "waste money" on video, Leica, Hassleblad and others make some very good stills only cameras. They are not cheap but at least you won't "waste money on video"

 

[Strobe the globe]

Yes, I am sure that it is booting up the cost (probably very significantly) ... but in my opinion it's worth it. I like the flexibility of having one piece of hardware which I can use for two very different forms of visual creativity.

 

[AvTvM]

The video capability isn't just software, it is hardware and it is part of the camera in a way that makes it impossible for you to elect for it to not be there.

so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

If car manufacturers are able to provide so many and profoundly different customer-selected configurations on so many different models, camera makers [with typically only 5 models of DSLRs in production!] should also be able to and forced by their customers to do so.

Even iPhones and iPads from the "grandmaster of inflexible companies" [Apple] are offered in 6 different configigurations each [WiFi/UMTS, 3x memory size].

To get ANY DSLR in a stills-only and video-enabled version would be the bare minimum. With a similar price differential as offered by Apple on an iPhone WiFi vs. one with WiFi and UMTS [around 20% ... although the cost difference to Apple is probaly less than 5 dollars per unit, R&D included!].

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I'm not following this at all. If supply is flat (not linear and certainly not linear with a slope of 10), then Cost(Q) = 10 (not 10Q) So in the first example P = 100-Q, the curves cross where 10=100-Q, so Q = 90 and P = 10. Second example they cross at, P=200-Q = 10 = Cost(Q), so Q=190 and P = 10 (more sales, same price)

In this case, the supply curve and MARGINAL cost are the same. Cost(Q)=10Q implies MC=10.

So in the first case, you would maximize Total Revenue-Total Cost= P*Q-C(Q)=(100-Q)Q-10Q.

Taking derivative with respect to Q, we get 100-2Q-10=0, resulting in Q=45. Plugging Q=45 back into the demand we get P=55.

I taught intermediate microtheory for 3 years at UNC-Chapel Hill, so for the sake of my former students, I hope I haven't f**ked this up.

 

[kdsand]

I'll be strait forward & to the point.

• it is raising the cost of the bodies
• it is unused by many

Power windows.
Remember the old crank windows?
Once electric became standard then cost of manual cranks started to increase.
Eventually the cost of providing manual exceeded the cost of electric on the assembly line.
4 a time the manufacturers continued to offer manual at a savings to consumers while in reality quietly taking a loss.
Why?
In order to keep the perception of high value electric as being a premium option consumer pay more because "hey look at this added value your receiving".
Eventually even jeeps and pick up trucks came with power windows as standard equipment.
That doesn't stop the manufacturer from implying that it is an added benefit even today. :

So let us say the top speed has gone up a bit, the transmission is a hair better, power steering is now up to the industry standard and the engine has about 4% more torque.

So should we run out and buy the vehicle based on it having power windows, improved cruise control and 5 percent more foot room now? ??? Should we be focused on those power windows and thus be willing to pay a premium? ???

I wanna be clear
I am the only 1 that is right


Sorry.