Sure, we all have our own different value systems, needs and preferences. However, I don't think DSLRs are overpriced. The pricing of the DSLR is subject to R&D and production costs .... and they are priced according to what manufacturers think the market will bear. The 5D did very well 3 years ago when the price was $3,200. However, because of lower sensor/production costs and competition from the D700 and A900, the 5D can only sell for $2,000 today. Will people pay $700 more to have the 5D II? You bet! I think there is more interest and pre-orders for the 5D II than any other previous Canon DSLR.
simonella_viru wrote:
i also mentioned that the 5d II can cure cancer, but you didn't seem to latch onto that minor detail
crappy is a very ambiguous descriptor that should be taken in the context by which it is used. i don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that each person has his/ her own expectations of what you *should* get for how much $$$.
in essence, everyone has their own value system and that's ok by me. personally, i think that dSLR prices are extremely over-inflated for what you're really getting. i'm eagerly waiting for the days when the market is completely saturated and the technology is fully matured, so that prices can be more on par with what i see as their actual inherent value (opinion of course).
bobbytan wrote:
There were several reincarnations of the Rebel series. Wait a few more years and maybe you can add the 5D Mk II, Mk III and Mk IV sales up. And besides, no semi-pro $3,000 DSLR will outsell a sub-$1,000 body. If the 5D wasn't successful, then the 1D3 and 1Ds3 are mega failures.
I wasn't doubting you or anything, for all I know the 5D could be Canon's best seller and it wouldn't honestly shock me too much, I was just curious if that was the facts. I mean, its the only digital they kept around for so long, and as a lot of us know, for good reason.
bobbytan wrote:
Sure, we all have our own different value systems, needs and preferences. However, I don't think DSLRs are overpriced. The pricing of the DSLR is subject to R&D and production costs .... and they are priced according to what manufacturers think the market will bear. The 5D did very well 3 years ago when the price was $3,200. However, because of lower sensor/production costs and competition from the D700 and A900, the 5D can only sell for $2,000 today. Will people pay $700 more to have the 5D II? You bet! I think there is more interest and pre-orders for the 5D II than any other previous Canon DSLR.
exactly, you're agreeing with me. currently, the market (yourself included) deems that the price is bearable for what you're getting. so, until that changes, the prices will stay close to where they are, and ever slightly lower as demand slowly pulls back. the law of diminishing returns, over time, after one has purchased (and sold) 3 or 4 canon dSLRs.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I have to disagree here. From everything I have seen and heard, it has excellent color, and it has very good performance wide open. The only complaint about the lens is that compared to the excellent-performing, and similarly-priced, Nikon 14-24G, there is little reason to buy the similarly performing ZF (or ZE) 18mm prime (except, IMHO, compactness, micro-contrast, and yes, color).
I don't know what you've heard, but Zeiss itself is excusing the poor color performance and falloff as a result of the compact design. The truth is that, except for B/W, and for those who like vignetting, the lens performs poorly.
It also performs poorly qhen compared to the new 16-36 Canon.
The lens also has an image that becomes increasingly blue as it approaches the edges and corners.
Hey.Underpants wrote:
I wasn't doubting you or anything, for all I know the 5D could be Canon's best seller and it wouldn't honestly shock me too much, I was just curious if that was the facts. I mean, its the only digital they kept around for so long, and as a lot of us know, for good reason.
It didn't outsell the cheap amateur cameras. But it's been used by many professionals, as well as by many in the level just below. It's been a very popular camera, esp in the price range it's in. The mkII will be just as popular, I'm sure.
It really is amazing how well the 5D stands up against the D700. In some shots, it's apparent I prefer the 5D image to the D700. 3 years on, and Nikon is still playing catch-up. That said, the technological advancements in the USAGE of the camera is where Nikon is storming ahead. I really hope the MKII can do.... something ..... to combat Nikon!
simonella_viru wrote:
exactly, you're agreeing with me. currently, the market (yourself included) deems that the price is bearable for what you're getting. so, until that changes, the prices will stay close to where they are, and ever slightly lower as demand slowly pulls back. the law of diminishing returns, over time, after one has purchased (and sold) 3 or 4 canon dSLRs.
The sensor is the single most expensive part of the camera. If a company makes a very expensive top end camera, the sensor price may never drop much due to the smaller sales of those models. But in lower cost models, with their cheaper to begin with sensors, enough may be sold for the sensor price to drop a good deal.
The next generation of camera then could be priced lower in the beginning, because the manufacturer now knows about how many they will sell, and therefor where the price of that sensor will be. By doing cost averaging, they can price that camera closer to where it would end up anyway, and get an advantage over those who sell far fewer cameras.
This is the problem, by the way, that smaller manufacturers are having vs Canon and Nikon. They are losing money in an attempt to keep the prices of their cameras competitive.
In the end, some will have to drop out. Sony is hoping that their big losses will be made up in the end by increased sales ala Canon and Nikon.
More power to them. I hope they make it. Competition is good.
Mel Gross wrote:
Sony is hoping that their big losses will be made up in the end by increased sales ala Canon and Nikon.
Hmmm, Mel, this sounds like the old story of the guy who sells TV's at a loss. When asked how he can do that and stay in business since he takes a loss on every sale, he says, "I make up for it in volume!"
tom in mpls wrote:
Hmmm, Mel, this sounds like the old story of the guy who sells TV's at a loss; when asked how he can do that and stay in business, he says, "I make up for it in volume!"
sorry Mel, i don't buy it either. if (for example) retailers can sell a full-frame 5d I for ~$2000 then it must have a significant enough profit margin for the retailer and for canon. what is the actual cost to Canon? i don't know and i won't even speculate. the technology is relatively mature and so are the manufacturing processes. this is not exotic technology.
Mel Gross wrote:
In the end, some will have to drop out. Sony is hoping that their big losses will be made up in the end by increased sales ala Canon and Nikon.
More power to them. I hope they make it. Competition is good.
SONY soooo hmmmm now if we lose $500 on each A900 hmm that sounds bad but WAIT if we sell 100,000 instead of 1,000 we can make it up in volume!
anyway, i assume you mean lure people in and then make it up with volume of lens sold and, in the future, normal priced bodies once people are hooked into the sony lens system and that more people will join in once they see enough have already joine din and they are just trying to buil a critical mass, even if at a loss for now.
anyway, i tend to doubt the A900 is being sold for a loss.
it's also hard to figure out cost by prices for cameras. The 1dsmkiii soley has a better body than the 5dmkii but the body is no better than the 1dmkiii's and yet the the 1dmkiii body (plus sensor) costs less than the 5dmkii to 1dsmkiii difference (granted APS-H mirror/shutter are less expensive than FF but a 10fps APS-H part is not tha tmuch less than a 5fps FF one). Also some of the top end film EOS bodies cost way less than the difference between 5dmkii and 1dsmkiii and they were FF, etc. etc.
tom in mpls wrote:
Hmmm, Mel, this sounds like the old story of the guy who sells TV's at a loss. When asked how he can do that and stay in business since he takes a loss on every sale, he says, "I make up for it in volume!"
With manufacturing, the more you make, up to a certain point, the lower your costs are. If your costs at the beginning are say, $1,000, and at the end $500, after selling a certain number, you can do one of several things (or combine them). You can charge full price at the beginning, to recover costs, and then lower it. You can charge the average price from the beginning, hoping that you WILL sell the needed number, or you can keep prices high, hoping that the next model can be sold at a lower price from the beginning.
I'm not sure which track Sony has been following, but they obviously hope to sell enough to make a profit at some point.
Someone could trip over a tripod or maybe the cameras are claustrophobic and get upset from being in cases? At least I know mine will be safe out at a race track, in the dust, smoggy air, the winners circle and natural elements, because it can stand up to "harsh studio conditions".
That 10ms more shutter lag than my 40D will probably really hurt. (not!)
Full frame, sharp pictures, same burst rate as the slower setting I use on the 40D except "until the card is full".
The only spec. that I'm unsure of is the 50 ISO expanded setting. It's going to make some of my lenses and old photos look soft. Buying more L lenses could be expensive.
simonella_viru wrote:
sorry Mel, i don't buy it either. if (for example) retailers can sell a full-frame 5d I for ~$2000 then it must have a significant enough profit margin for the retailer and for canon. what is the actual cost to Canon? i don't know and i won't even speculate. the technology is relatively mature and so are the manufacturing processes. this is not exotic technology.
Yes, but remember that Canon has been selling this camera for three years! Three years!
Which other D-SLR has been sold for three years? This is a long time. Canon has made their money on this a long time ago. They're just coasting along. They likely priced this camera for an 18 month cycle, as usual, or at most, a 2 year cycle. They were likely just as surprised as anyone when no true competitor to it arrived. So its sales kept chugging along. Meanwhile, Canon has dropped prices along the way. Slightly, at first, but then, more rapidly, as when they introduced the 24-105 kit. They probably have made a Hefty profit because of its long lifetime, and good for them!
If they had come out with a new model a year ago, it's possible that whatever Nikon's new D700 would have been in response would have trampled it. Now, I'm hearing that Nikon will have to lower prices drastically to compete, and I think Sony is in the same boat.
Sony is in a different position from either Canon or Nikon. They are losing money on their camera division. Along with losing money in their game division (though they say they've made money there recently), this isn't good for the company. Meanwhile Canon is very profitable, and Nikon is less so, but still comfortable.
Is Sony underpricing it's models? Are they underpricing the a900? I don't know, but somehow, they're losing money, so something is wrong.
Agreed. It's simple manufacturing economies of scale. Canon needs to recover their R&D and other overheads over the product's expected life cycle of 18 months or whatever. Once they have done that, all they pay are the variable costs. I would not be surprised if Canon is making more money selling the 5D at $2,000 than they did when they were selling it for $3,300 at the start of it's life cycle.
Mel Gross wrote:
Yes, but remember that Canon has been selling this camera for three years! Three years!
Which other D-SLR has been sold for three years? This is a long time. Canon has made their money on this a long time ago. They're just coasting along. They likely priced this camera for an 18 month cycle, as usual, or at most, a 2 year cycle. They were likely just as surprised as anyone when no true competitor to it arrived. So its sales kept chugging along. Meanwhile, Canon has dropped prices along the way. Slightly, at first, but then, more rapidly, as when they introduced the 24-105 kit. They probably have made a Hefty profit because of its long lifetime, and good for them!
If they had come out with a new model a year ago, it's possible that whatever Nikon's new D700 would have been in response would have trampled it. Now, I'm hearing that Nikon will have to lower prices drastically to compete, and I think Sony is in the same boat.
Sony is in a different position from either Canon or Nikon. They are losing money on their camera division. Along with losing money in their game division (though they say they've made money there recently), this isn't good for the company. Meanwhile Canon is very profitable, and Nikon is less so, but still comfortable.
Is Sony underpricing it's models? Are they underpricing the a900? I don't know, but somehow, they're losing money, so something is wrong.
I'm not sure Tom was disagreeing with me. ...Show more →
skibum5 wrote:
SONY soooo hmmmm now if we lose $500 on each A900 hmm that sounds bad but WAIT if we sell 100,000 instead of 1,000 we can make it up in volume!
anyway, i assume you mean lure people in and then make it up with volume of lens sold and, in the future, normal priced bodies once people are hooked into the sony lens system and that more people will join in once they see enough have already joine din and they are just trying to buil a critical mass, even if at a loss for now.
anyway, i tend to doubt the A900 is being sold for a loss.
it's also hard to figure out cost by prices for cameras. The 1dsmkiii soley has a better body than the 5dmkii but the body is no better than the 1dmkiii's and yet the the 1dmkiii body (plus sensor) costs less than the 5dmkii to 1dsmkiii difference (granted APS-H mirror/shutter are less expensive than FF but a 10fps APS-H part is not tha tmuch less than a 5fps FF one). Also some of the top end film EOS bodies cost way less than the difference between 5dmkii and 1dsmkiii and they were FF, etc. etc. ...Show more →
I mean, as I said in other posts, that manufacturing costs come down the more product you make. If Sony chooses to lose money at first on a new product, in order to position it, they could make it back if the volume is great enough for the manufacturing price to drop sufficiently so that the average manufacturing cost over time is low enough for them to make a profit as sales pile up.
This is a very common practice. The trick is to figure out the right price so that your estimated sales will allow you a profit IF to make that sales number over the time allotted.
You bring up lenses. Pro lenses don't have a high profit margin in percentage, as often too few are sold at the extreme ends of the spectrum. The greatest profits are made on the medium priced models, because they sell very well (even pro's buy them).
The sensors are expensive, though some here don't want to believe that. I remember being told that a sensor could cost 2/3rds of the manufacturing cost of the camera. I don't find that difficult to believe. But over time, it comes down in price. Manufacturers don't like to drop the price of their pro models, as they feel it gives a cheapening effect, and only makes it difficult to charge a higher price for the next model. I understand the problem.
In any area, professional prices tend upwards, not downwards. Quality must be maintained in the face of inflated manufacturing costs.
I know their are cynics here, but its true. My own company, years ago, had that same problem.
Mel Gross wrote:
Yes, but remember that Canon has been selling this camera for three years! Three years! ... They likely priced this camera for an 18 month cycle, as usual, or at most, a 2 year cycle. They were likely just as surprised as anyone when no true competitor to it arrived. So its sales kept chugging along. Meanwhile, Canon has dropped prices along the way.
In the meantime while the 5D price has come down and presumably pursuaded some to move to it who otherwise wouldn't have, they have also scored more customers who are now in the market for EF lenses as well. After all, as I see it, pulling customers into a lens system is a good source of profit for Canon (despite 3rd party lenses), so this also needs to be considered in the profitability equation as well.
bobbytan wrote:
Agreed. It's simple manufacturing economies of scale. Canon needs to recover their R&D and other overheads over the product's expected life cycle of 18 months or whatever. Once they have done that, all they pay are the variable costs. I would not be surprised if Canon is making more money selling the 5D at $2,000 than they did when they were selling it for $3,300 at the start of it's life cycle.
Sure. They've made their money back ages ago.
Now, they figure they'll sell a ton of mkII's so they can afford to take the improved 1Ds sensor and sell it on a cheaper camera. The 5D series will probably outsell the 1Ds models by ten to one.
If that's a correct ratio, then the price of the sensor could drop by 3/4s.
I would imagine the same thing is true for the Nikon D3/700 duo, and could account for why the D3 is priced at $5,000, rather than being priced higher. The D700 sales, many more than the D3 sales, will drop the sensor cost, so Nikon is making the assumption that will happen from the beginning, and giving the buyer the advantage.
It also costs less to manufacture a much lower density sensor, because there will be fewer defective sites.
photogenix wrote:
In the meantime while the 5D price has come down and presumably pursuaded some to move to it who otherwise wouldn't have, they have also scored more customers who are now in the market for EF lenses as well. After all, as I see it, pulling customers into a lens system is a good source of profit for Canon (despite 3rd party lenses), so this also needs to be considered in the profitability equation as well.
Absolutely!
Canon was almost frozen by this. How to come out with a replacement when your current product is doing so well?
All companies keep watch on the bottom line. If a product is still doing it for them, they will just keep at the R&D. That's cheaper than scrapping a production process, and starting up a new one, where costs are at the top of the curve again.
Mel Gross wrote:
I'm not sure Tom was disagreeing with me.
I do understand that marginal cost of production is lower than average cost, and much lower than the cost of the first unit. I figured you didn't really mean that Sony would magically turn losses into profits, but the way you stated it was amusing.
