I think there is a misconception that removing features to create "no frills" or "basic functionality" cameras means companies can sell cameras for less. I think it goes the other way. Here's an example.
Before video, DSLR's already had the hardware necessary to do video. They just needed the software. Once that is written, it is probably largely portable to all camera tiers. So in this instance, the camera manufacturers take current HW, add a SW feature, then charge more for the camera. That's how you add value to charge more.
So, removing features like video and charging less would negatively impact profit, because the camera manufactures can't 'take anything out' of the camera to make them cheaper to produce. It's "just" software at that point.
Know what I mean? I've had some Mai Tai's so maybe I wasn't as eloquent in print as I sounded in my mind
Bought a 5DII at Calumet this week. Salesman said Canon recently dropped its price $200. The store discount came to $100. Canon picked up the sales tax. Something afoot.
dwweiche wrote:
I think there is a misconception that removing features to create "no frills" or "basic functionality" cameras means companies can sell cameras for less. I think it goes the other way. Here's an example.
Before video, DSLR's already had the hardware necessary to do video. They just needed the software. Once that is written, it is probably largely portable to all camera tiers. So in this instance, the camera manufacturers take current HW, add a SW feature, then charge more for the camera. That's how you add value to charge more.
So, removing features like video and charging less would negatively impact profit, because the camera manufactures can't 'take anything out' of the camera to make them cheaper to produce. It's "just" software at that point.
Know what I mean? I've had some Mai Tai's so maybe I wasn't as eloquent in print as I sounded in my mind ...Show more →
well explain the 1v and EOS3
the problem is that people are driven by frills instead of functionality...
so if Canon choose to make a no frills camera like the Sony a850
there still other options for people who value frills over function
Yes, Canon can make an A850-like camera. I just suspect it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so.
I can't explain the 1v vs. EOS3 because I don't know them and never shot film SLR's, so you have me at at disadvantage. However I do know consumer electronics, which are what today's DSLR's really are I think. Companies make money by adding value via SW features. Product life-cycles are too short to gain much in cost-reducing the HW over time. Companies that don't realize this are usually in trouble.
I think it was explained above that we need to accept to a large degree that companies make products that are profitable, not necessarily what we always want. The exception are those instances where a company is willing to eat money to ship a product for some other strategic business reason. Maybe this is what Sony is doing. Don't know, I can only speculate on their gross margin (or loss) with the A850.
I see you also mentioned Live View as an example of a feature to remove. Again, this is similar to the video feature I used as an example. I am reasonably sure the 40D has everything needed in hardware to do Live View. There's just no SW in the 40D to do so. Canon adds the SW to add value to the 50D, and they can charge for it. Taking it out of the 50D doesn't make the camera cheaper to produce.
Things that might make the camera actually cheaper would be putting in an older Digic, older AF module, smaller sensor, smaller LCD, less cache for the buffer, etc... generally these aren't the things people most want removed from their ideal no-frills camera.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just having a conversation.
On the other hand, a cheaper and older AF module like the one in the 5D mkII is certainly a cost cutting measure. Now that the 7D's AF has been developed and I assume is as cheap to actually produce, there would be no economic reason to hold back on the 5D mkIII for example other than bloody mindedness.
Canon need to do something to rejuvenate their DSLR line, where they are lagging Nikon/Sony. Some of their stuff is so old hat that I can hardly wait until Feb. 9. The first camera they absolutely need to release is 7D MkII. I have no idea what the specs or IQ will be like, but I just pre-ordered one.
philber wrote:
Canon need to do something to rejuvenate their DSLR line, where they are lagging Nikon/Sony. Some of their stuff is so old hat that I can hardly wait until Feb. 9. The first camera they absolutely need to release is 7D MkII. I have no ida what the specs or IQ will be like, but I just pre-ordered one.
I'm hoping for the 1D Mark V and an EF1000L IS F4 at 7 lbs.
Psychic1 wrote:
EF500L IS F4 with 5 stop IS at 7.5 lbs.
We have similar goals.
But what I want is a long white lens
- between 400-600
- f/4 or faster
- lightest of the three at under 3.9kg (7.5 lbs would be nice)
- 6 stops of IS (200/2L IS has 5, may as well ask for 6)
- $6,000 or cheaper. But I'll bet it'll sell for around $8,000
Though unlikely a 180mm Macro with Hybrid IS.
After that I am so so done in this rat race unless Canon comes out with something longer than an 800.
PierreB wrote:
I'd like to see a 12-24 fast WA and a 24-70 with IS.
I could go for that! Especially the 12-24 UWA.
Maybe also a small Oly PEN (i.e. not dSLR) type body with an ef lens mount.
With an electronic viewfinder with minimal time lag, and a set of small lenses designed for the short backfocus distance (no mirror box) plus an adapter ring to use EF and EF-S lenses on it.
digitalbug30d wrote:
60D no brainer 1.6 crop 15 mp digic5
3D a FF version of a 7D (16.7mp) digic4 x 2
Canon needs a 3D...but make it for 1999.99
in order that it wont interfere with 5Dmk3 sales at 2599.00
In Canon's heirarchy, 3 has been a higher-level camera than 5 so I wouldn't expect a 3D to sell for less than the 5D. Although, I could see your description as one for the next rendition of the 5D whenever that happens. But with 21+ mpx, not 16.7.
Tom_W wrote:
In Canon's heirarchy, 3 has been a higher-level camera than 5 so I wouldn't expect a 3D to sell for less than the 5D. Although, I could see your description as one for the next rendition of the 5D whenever that happens. But with 21+ mpx, not 16.7.
The 5dmkIII will get the 1DsIV sensor a year after, so do not expect it before mid-2011 at best. If Canon makes a 3D, it would be priced way over the 5D2 anyway.
My top choice would be an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS. I have the Sigma and, well, its a Sigma... But the light weight and 80-240 2.8 equivalent range is a dream on the 7D.
dwweiche wrote:
I see you also mentioned Live View as an example of a feature to remove. Again, this is similar to the video feature I used as an example. I am reasonably sure the 40D has everything needed in hardware to do Live View. There's just no SW in the 40D to do so. Canon adds the SW to add value to the 50D, and they can charge for it. Taking it out of the 50D doesn't make the camera cheaper to produce.
Things that might make the camera actually cheaper would be putting in an older Digic, older AF module, smaller sensor, smaller LCD, less cache for the buffer, etc... generally these aren't the things people most want removed from their ideal no-frills camera.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just having a conversation....Show more →
Actually the 40D already has Liveview but I see your point
Too bad it couldn't be an EF 50-135/2.8 IS. Excellent range for portraits on FF. Traditional tele-zoom range on APS-C (80-216 FOV equivalent) . Even on APS-H it would be useful (65-175 FOV equivalent).
I would love a 50-150 2.8 IS. Or a 30 1.4/1.8 but they would probably be ef-s. If they both have USM then I would be jumping on them in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many crop users like myself would sell their 35L for a EF-S 30 1.8 w/USM if it was sharp wide open?
I also wonder how much a ef-s 50-150 2.8 IS would cost?
