Mel Gross wrote:
That means firing off as much as several thousand shots a day. Do you do that in the field?
People who have never been in a studio seem to think it is some kind of pampered place, where cameras don't get dropped, tripods knocked over, nor the shutter released.
Quite a bit gets lost in translation as well, as when Mr. Maeda speaks in Japanese he uses a word that translates more accurately to challenging, fast paced or simply busy rather than harsh.
tom in mpls wrote:
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.
Yeah. I find the color scheme of this site a bit disconcerting. Sometimes, when I read what I wrote, I don't get it either.
If that argument could be made successfully, what would prevent any owner of any fairly recent Canon model from making the same argument for updating their model? If that were to happen I would suspect that Canon, Nikon, and all other DSLR and P&S manufacturers would be sorely discouraged from ever coming out with anything new. Yes, the 1DsMkIII is the flagship for Canon, but still, the argument for providing upgrades to the latest enhancements seems to be baseless. In my opinion.
I am afterall, a rather frequent and current customer of Canon primarily due to the fact that I expect my Canon equipment of the current generation to be "cutting edge", and look hopefully to the future to buy their next generation of cutting edge equipment. I could hardly expect Canon to upgrade my last year's new model because they have devised something newer and better in their latest model. That's just the way life is.
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.
Actually, Canon has said that the bulk of their R&D effort is to design systems that are constantly more efficient (less expensive) to manufacture. Thus, they would release a new model--even with absolutely no changes in features--if they've newly
designed it to be cheaper to manufacture.
That's the reason why with only one exception they have never "reused" a sensor. Each generation of sensor is designed to be cheaper to produce and install in that particular new camera (or the new camera's more efficient design requires a redesigned sensor) even if it has no outward differences in characteristics.
sailingpilot wrote:
What's the consensus on pre-ordering? B&H? Somewhere else? Are they charging the card at pre-order or upon shipping?
If you haven't pre-ordered yet, your chances of doing so are decreasing rapidly. From what I can see, stores are only taking pre-orders to meet their iinitial shipment. That's why Amazon, B&H, and Adorama have stopped taking pre-orders.
There are some dependable regional stores still taking them, though--although those stores normally require a deposit and will have much shorter pre-order lists.
RDKirk wrote:
Actually, Canon has said that the bulk of their R&D effort is to design systems that are constantly more efficient (less expensive) to manufacture. Thus, they would release a new model--even with absolutely no changes in features--if they've newly
designed it to be cheaper to manufacture.
That's the reason why with only one exception they have never "reused" a sensor. Each generation of sensor is designed to be cheaper to produce and install in that particular new camera (or the new camera's more efficient design requires a redesigned sensor) even if it has no outward differences in characteristics.
That's once the line has been running for a while. The closedown costs are significant, and the startup costs are as well. There's more to it than just putting in a new order.
Quite a bit gets lost in translation as well, as when Mr. Maeda speaks in Japanese he uses a word that translates more accurately to challenging, fast paced or simply busy rather than harsh.
I don't know if Maeda was doing his own translation or it was being done for him, but certainly "lost in translation" is a likely factor.
At any rate, it can generally be presumed that "professional use" bespeaks a need for a more robust camera for a number of reasons, even if that professional use is in a studio. Just as significantly is a professional need for a camera that has less probablity of breakdown even from the first exposure.
Shooting portraits as I do now, I can easily shoot with a primary camera and have a backup in my case. I can easily halt a session to switch to the backup.
If I were still doing PJ or wedding work, that would not be an easy option. I'd normally be shooting with two cameras, so I'd need at least a third camera onsite (in my bag) as a backup, and that can be a logistical problem. As well, I would not be as able to say, "Okay, I'm back. Now let's run through that again."
That's once the line has been running for a while. The closedown costs are significant, and the startup costs are as well. There's more to it than just putting in a new order.
"Running a while" for Canon appears to be as little as 12 months for their consumer cameras. It's their statement that they make model changes to introduce more efficient assembly techniques.
cftofu2k wrote:
i'll wait a couple of weeks to get it in case of any bugs/problems.
couple weeks ?? Many manufacturing new-product start-up glitches are indeed resolved in the first 2-4 weeks, but depending on the nature of a specific problem it could take many weeks before enough customer feedback (complaints/returns/service requests) results in a correction. Remember the 1D Mk-III?, it took many months before it's problem was fixed (kinda).
If you are willing to take a slight risk then go ahead and get one when you want it, knowing you can return it if needed. For those warm fuzzy feelings of confidence produced by many happy customer reports and reviews, with the simultaneous absence of significant negative reviews, it could easily take one to three months.
I have 11 years experience as a Manufacturing Process Engineer in electronics, I know sometimes a process change made to fix a specific issue can actually create a new problem which did not exist previously. My only point, there is always some level of risk and those who require a lot of reassurance should probably wait more than a couple weeks..
FYI, knowing all the risks, I just bought a new 50D and they have been in the stores only one week. (I like it!)
RDKirk wrote:
"Running a while" for Canon appears to be as little as 12 months for their consumer cameras. It's their statement that they make model changes to introduce more efficient assembly techniques.
12 months isn't a short time. Moat models go through change after 18, so that would be two thirds through the sales life of most of their bodies.
Also, it's not unusual to modify a production run IF efficiencies can be found. Canon is no different, but it doesn't mean that they do this on a regular basis.
I preordered mine from my local camera store here in San Diego. I have bought bodies there before, wonderful store. Ben Horne works there and is very knowledgeable. Here is the link to their new website if anyone needs a good place to preorder!
Chrono1081 wrote:
I preordered mine from Ritz Camera. I know some people scoff at them but they are in malls everywhere so I should be safe with my order.
The retail stores may or may not be of assistance. Technically, the stores and Ritzcamera.com
are completely separate corporate entities. That's how they avoid charging local sales taxes. However, way back when the dReb first came out, I bought mine online; when it had a problem I took it to a store and they quickly exchanged it for a new one. HOWEVER, the stores will probably not stock the 5D as most stores usually do not stock the big buck items.
I'm a bit confused about the noise and resolution comparisons between the 5d and 5dII. As for noise, I understand that pixel-peeping at 100% is likely to show more noise on a per-pixel basis on the 5dII vs the 5D. However, I'm interpreting the discussion to indicate that at a given ISO, total noise for the whole image should be lower on the 5dII. Is that correct?
Also, because of the higher resolution and lower overall noise, it seems that prints at the same size should favor the 5dII. However, would prints printed at the same resolution, e.g. 300dpi, favor the 5dII as well?
philtax wrote:
As for noise, I understand that pixel-peeping at 100% is likely to show more noise on a per-pixel basis on the 5dII vs the 5D.
Where did you see that? Noise is at the pixel level. If a pixel contains noise so will the entire image, where that pixel is. A noisy image is just a lot of noisy pixels. How can per-pixel noise be greater than the noise as a who;e?
Unless you mean that under certain circumstances, noise is greater in some areas of the image than others, which is what happens.
Also, because of the higher resolution and lower overall noise, it seems that prints at the same size should favor the 5dII. However, would prints printed at the same resolution, e.g. 300dpi, favor the 5dII as well?
Yes, prints of the same size will favor the mkII. So will prints at the same resolution, because noise is lower, when the same ISO and shooting conditions are met.
