danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.14 #1 · 'Official' Post-PMA Discussion thread | |
obody here has bothered to mention the fact that the vast majority of digital rebel photographers are content using **only** the kit lens. The market for $700 EF-S lenses will not survive on the strength of digital rebel users alone.
On the other hand, very very few 20D/30D photographers have only the kit lens in their bag. I'd say that the market for expensive EF-S lenses today (ie 10-22 and 17-55) survive largely because of 20D/30D photographers. If the 20D/30D series abandon the EF-S mount, it will effectively kill the market for expensive EF-S lenses.
I have a hunch that a pretty large percentage of the 20D/30D users also stick to one lens, and that it is often the kit lens, or sometimes either the 17-85 or (for well-heeled buyers) the 17-55 f/2.8. (Keep in mind that FM posters are likely more dedicated photographers than the typical crop sensor camera buyer.) That is an interesting question though - what percentage of crop sensor camera buyers use only their original kit lens vs. the percentage acquiring additional lenses?
"Abandoning" the EF-S lenses (and I'm not saying that such a move is occurring any time soon) would not likely be a big problem for Canon as long as they draw down inventory first. If they were to move away from crop sensor cameras (at least above the entry level) there would be little demand for high quality EF-S lenses such as the 10-22 and the 17-55 any more. If anything, as owners of older 20D/30D/other crop bodies moved to full frame the demand would dry up on its own
Regarding the pricing changes necessary for full frame to penetrate the portion of the market currently served by the 10D/20D/30D type cameras, I don't think the price would need to go quite as low as you might think. While you can purchase the current camera in this series for a price in the low $1000 range, there are several reasons to think that a full frame replacement could sell for more.
My view is that a successful price at introduction could be a few hundred dollars above the inflation adjusted original list price of the 10D or, arguably, the 30D. Those cameras did sell well at prices that were, again in inflation adjusted terms, higher than the current 30D price. While you might accurately point out that those cameras had little or no competition in their market niche or even at close prices above or below, putting a full frame sensor in such a camera now creates a similar situation - there would be no competition at a similar price and the less-expensive bodies would be crop sensor. (This is not to say that crop sensor bodies are not good, but it is true that there is some real value for many buyers in the full frame sensors.)
In addition, Canon has improved and made more powerful the next lower model, the 400D. The functional advantages of a 30D over a 400D are much less clear than differences between similarly placed models were in the past. What this means, I think, is that Canon could get away with increasing the price on the model above the 400D as part of an introduction of a full frame sensor. Those who weren't will to pay the higher price differential for (what I'll call) a "full frame 40D" might be less disappointed by the 400D than they might have previously been by a 300D or even a 350D. For those who want full frame, getting it for a price not far above the inflation adjusted price previously paid for a new 20D (and quite a bit below the list price of a 5D) would seem like a very good deal.
Edited by danmitchell on Mar 01, 2007 at 09:20 AM GMT
|
