Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]

[samirachiko]

I really want a cheap FF. The Canon 5D MK3 is awesome BUT TOO expensive!!!! We are not all rich!... A lot of people are waiting a cheap FF!

 

[c-law]

With this camera we have two options for what they will deliver as entry level:

1. Cheaper than 5D2 and worse than 5D2 (same AF, cheaper/rebel like build).

2. Same price as 5D2 and slightly improved in some areas and worse in others to balance it out (do not expect a good AF system, it might be improved but I would expect equal to but probably less than 7D quality - the cannot canibalise the sales of the 5D3).

Can someone tell me as a potential purchaser of the t4i when and if it comes out what benefits there would be to waiting for the entry level full frame

Advantages of FF: Better image quality, ISO is cleaner and better at the same levels.

Disadvantages: Can't use EF-S lenses. Less "reach" for getting more pixels in the centre of your lens (which is good for wildlife/sport).

Chris

 

[nitsujwalker]

So essentially it will be the 5d2? I'm not sure why they don't just drop the price of the 5d2.

They did, they dropped the MSRP from $2499 to $2199...it just happened to coincide with the time prices normally rise. That said, there have been a variety of deals where its been <$2k.

And they dropped it fairly significantly in their refurb store...with Canon Loyalty, a refurb 5D comes out to $1500ish. Can't really get any cheaper: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_29252#

Except the point is that they will release a CHEAPER fullframe with stripped specs. So why not keep the 5d2 around and lower the price.

 

[nitsujwalker]

So essentially it will be the 5d2? I'm not sure why they don't just drop the price of the 5d2.

They did, they dropped the MSRP from $2499 to $2199...it just happened to coincide with the time prices normally rise. That said, there have been a variety of deals where its been <$2k.

And they dropped it fairly significantly in their refurb store...with Canon Loyalty, a refurb 5D comes out to $1500ish. Can't really get any cheaper: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_29252#

Except the point is that they will release a CHEAPER fullframe with stripped specs. So why not keep the 5d2 around and lower the price.

#1 they can't reduce the 5d2 price below a certain point or they lose money per unit
#2 if the competition introduces a camera for cheaper than the 5d2 then they can't compete on price because of #1
#3 they can't add features to the 5d2 that could be seen to be expected by customers
#4 if other brands introduce ff cameras for the same price or cheaper than the 5d2 with newer features then the 5d2 will lose out

#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology. Save the money on R&D and lower the price.
#2 irrelevant if #1
#3 True––completely agree (but new features [generally] equals higher price)
#4 True-- but once again new features [generally] equals higher price (especially with Canon's recent history)

I suppose my point is that I don't know how they can strip a camera down much more than the 5d2 and sell it at a lower price. Or how they can add features and sell it at a lower cost. Your point is that the 5d2 price can't go down because they will lose money. But feature-wise the 5d2 doesn't have much (I own one and love it by the way). If the point is to have a cheap full-frame then the 5d2 would work without the R&D. But if it's simply marketing and they are releasing a camera similar to the 5d2 in hope that the 'new' camera will make people buy it, then I suppose I understand.

 

[daniel_charms]

Except the point is that they will release a CHEAPER fullframe with stripped specs. So why not keep the 5d2 around and lower the price.

I would guess it's because even Canon has limited production capabilities. They can't keep making the 5d2 because they're either phasing out or have already stopped producing some of its central components, like the Digic IV processor or the image sensor. The resources have already been reallocated and the tooling used for their production replaced to produce Digic V-s and 5d3 sensors; converting them back or setting up a separate production line for the previous-generation stuff would not be cheap. It would be more economical in the long run to produce a cheap "updated 5d2" utilizing bits used in other current cameras than keep resources tied up in making limited quantities of older components.

 

[eirikv]

They must make something to replace my 5D classic I'm not making money on my photography and I can't pay the price for a 5DIII. The 5D was a huge investment for me and I'm probably not going to spend that much on a camera again. But my EF lenses need a host in the future.

Making a "entry" FF camera with a price between 7D and 5D (I and II) makes a lot of sense and someone will eventually make it.

And Canon; I would like CF card and articulated LCD screen
And because of my long journeys into the wild I would also like a optical viewfinder, live view is nice but it eats my batteries.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

If Canon do decide to make a body like this, I think they need to change the entire concept of the camera and make it smaller and lighter than any of the current full frame models. That would be a good way of marketing it as something different from the 5D MkII.

Agree. I think it should be a new category of camera - a 6d or something.

There's definitely a market for people who would like FF but won't spend on a 5d3 (or don't need the features) but who would like an "upgrade" from their 7d, 5d1 or something.

 

[pedro]

Nikon is rumored to be bring out a low end FF Body. It will not be pro level, but have the features of their beginner models.

The Canon equivalent would be a FF Rebel, but even that would be better than the nikon model which, without a AF motor drive, can only use the newer Nikon lenses. So if you have good but older Nikon Glass, it would be no autofocus. This really runs up the price to the buyer.

I would like to see this materializing. Would take us back to film days, when every SLR was FF. The manufacturers may use lesser material in > US $ 2200 bodies and so on, as long as they get back to "the real thing", maybe time and construction cost are due for a move like that.

 

[Danack]

Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

[quote author=daniel_charms]#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology. Save the money on R&D and lower the price.[/quote]

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

 

[psolberg]

While I don’t doubt a less expensive full frame camera in Canon’s future, I think most specs currently floating around will be of the wish-list variety

thank you. that's what I've been saying since the D600 articles on nikon rumor's triggered the flood of sudden cheap FF dslr canon tips. It was clearly a reaction to usual "canon has to follow nikon all the time" trend we see whenever nikon does anything. In 2007 nikon released the D3, suddently canon was going to do a fast full frame camera. Did not happen until the 1DX. In 2008 nikon released an 8fps capable full farme camera at 3K called the D700, then canon's 3D was inminent. Didn't happen until 2012 with the 5DmkIII. Nikon releases big MP camera, suddenly canon has one in the wings. Yes it will be called 5Dmk4. And now, nikon is about to release a cheap FF dslr and suddently canon has one too.

are we seeing a trend? this is the typical design by wishlist fans we get every time. the day we get tips like these far removed from a recent nikon release I may believe them. until then they are just reactions from the crowd that seems to be more worried about what nikon does than what canon does. just switch over then 8)

 

[goodmane]

I would be interested in this if it is lighter than the 5d classic, and a bit smaller.

I really want something a little lighter with a built-in flash, but I'm not willing to give up the large viewfinder and nice image quality of full frame. I also really want video mode, auto ISO in PASM modes, and some wireless transfer built-in would be nice, perhaps with an ftp link run on Android on the backscreen.

I also want a small lens e.g. better 35mm f2 to go with it. As in, USM AF, and better screen coating. While you're at it Canon, how about a non-branded strap to go with my camera so I'm not a walking advert? Canon colours are fine, but I don't want your logo on my shoulder.

I really hope Canon delivers on the cheaper, more useable full frame camera front, because I am unhappy with the level of technology in cameras at the moment relative to smartphones for example, where you can take pics and video then wirelessly transfer everything to the PC (or wherever) when you feel like it.

I do not expect to have to pay extra for wireless functionality in 2012. This should be the price of admission to market these days, not a selling point!

Also while I don't expect every trinket from the 5D3, the AF needs a serious boost, just to compete with 2012 competition e.g. micro four thirds.

Canon is no longer competing with just standard DSLRs in this category anymore, but also with M43 and Fuji x100 etc.

 

[nicku]

So essentially it will be the 5d2? I'm not sure why they don't just drop the price of the 5d2.

Maybe a 5D2 with 7D AF. i will definitely buy one for $2000-2200.

The only thing they must do is to implement the 7D AF in the current 5D2 and change the name( say 6D, 3D) .

 

[dukeofprunes]

...

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

 

[nitsujwalker]

Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

[quote author=daniel_charms]#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology. Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.
[/quote]

Interesting insight.. The harddrive analogy makes sense.

 

[Danack]

I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

I don't think it would be that much...the cost of magnesium is only a couple of dollars, and yes machining it into a body is not cheap, but it couldn't be much more than $50.

It won't be the SD card that gets the chop but rather the CF card. It's a larger enclosure. Smaller card, smaller enclosure, smaller door.

Possibly. That would make sense to entice people upgrading from non-full frame cameras. Sucks for people like me with two 5d classics and a whole bunch of compact flash cards.

The only way that would make it cheaper is if there is dedicated hardware that would be left out.

It wouldn't make the manufacturing cost cheaper, but it would make the product be worth much less (in consumers eyes), and so allow Canon to have a significant price differential between the 5d mkIII and a 'cut-down' full frame camera.

And yeah I don't think that leaving video out makes much sense - as Canon are not just competing with their own product line, but with lots of other competitors as well.

Which one are you going to choose?

Actually - I'm waiting for the 1DX to come out and am saving up for that...

 

[dukeofprunes]

I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

I don't think it would be that much...the cost of magnesium is only a couple of dollars, and yes machining it into a body is not cheap, but it couldn't be much more than $50.

I think build quality comes at a higher premium. If 1D series build quality comes at $50, why don't all xxD cameras have it? It's relatively cheap compared to the total price.

I suspect the pricing policy of these products has as much with Canon (and other brands) DSLR line up, as with absolute production costs. Entry level pricing needs to be competitive, while pro level pricing is more determined by what the users are willing to pay. In that respect, I think there are alooot of wedding photographers willing to pay $3.500 for the 5D3.

 

[whatta]

I was hoping for a 60d size/price full frame (max 7d price), but then I decided not to wait further and invested too much into efs lenses..

 

[MacDarcy]

Ok. Since this is just a rumor, I'll bite.

I would LOVE to see a FF rebel! Yup. Thats what I'd like ta see. Canon, make it happen!

Small. Light. Basic. Entry level FF for the masses. Yeah baby! Bring it! Heh heh heh

 

[Danack]

Actually I thought of how they can knock a significant amount off the price of a full frame camera. Drop the:

Mirror
Penta-prism
Phase detection focusing

aka make a full-frame mirrorless camera. Those three items are all pretty expensive material wise and also make the manufacture process much more complicated, so removing them would result in a full-frame camera much cheaper than a 5d MKiii.

 

[RLPhoto]

Ok. Since this is just a rumor, I'll bite.

I would LOVE to see a FF rebel! Yup. Thats what I'd like ta see. Canon, make it happen!

Small. Light. Basic. Entry level FF for the masses. Yeah baby! Bring it! Heh heh heh

They've already made it, over 6 years ago. The 5dc is the budget full frame camera thats under 1000$.