reggieb
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: EOS-R5....will it live up to the hype? | |
EverLearning wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
EverLearning wrote:
gdanmitchell, i agree size of market influences price, but if your means of increasing 'market' is increasing price by adding all kinds of extras, the subsequent reduction in price due to enhanced market reach doesn't offset that increase. If it did, everything - cars, TVs, furnaces, cameras, computers, etc - would just come fully spec'ed out. Such is not the case.
The incremental costs of adding video capability to these still cameras is almost certainly very small by comparison to the base price of producing the units.
...
Video is just another feature that some users find attractive, but not all care about — think of features like face-detection, ultra-fast burst modes, some of the esoteric AF modes, the ability to work with electronic flash, etc.
...
The bottom line here is that I'm baffled that folks are so up in arms about the fact that their great still camera also has some additional features that don't interfere with their still photography, might potentially have some use, and which enlarge the market of the cameras, allowing the development and production costs to be spread over a larger number of units.
Dan
Perhaps the incremental costs of adding video are small compared to base price of producing the unit. Perhaps not. How much extra R&D went into designing the camera to offer top of class video rather than video like a 7D MII or a 5D IV? Were more expensive materials used within the camera than otherwise necessary to aid in heat dissipation, or tolerating the higher heat? What other considerations might there be that I, not an engineer, wouldn't even think about?
I did mention two considerations; the other being perceived value, which you actually allude to as well. If you think back to the 80s, it didn't cost Sony anything to put 'Sony' on its products but it sure added to the cost. That was due to reputation and therefore perceived value. In this case, making this camera probably the best ML around AND the best non-cinamatic video device around is definitely going to cost the buyer more because you are getting 'more' so there is more perceived value.
You say that video is just another feature. True, but the other features you mention in the same breath are all related to stills, not video. A photographer who only shoots photos is very likely to use an assortment of those features but will not use the video feature.
Another point supporting this perspective is products that have been crippled in lower versions. So a product actually can do 10 things for example, but the manufacturer cripples seven things for the base version (via firmware or software) and cripples four things for the mid version. Obviously, production costs of all three versions of the product is exactly the same yet the three products sell for three very different prices.
So while I will readily agree that the video doesn't 'interfere' with my use of the camera as a tool for actual photography, I still firmly hold the believe that it adversely impacts price; possibly to the extent I will not be able to buy what is certainly looking to be an impressive tool for photography. To me, that would be very sad.
I am cautiously excited about the R5. But you mentioned heat. I didn't read this entire thread, but I actually only saw this morning that there will be an HEVC option. I can't fathom how they will pull this off. My desktop computer, with a full custom water cooling loop, with a 360mm radiator, and a total of 6 120mm and 2 140mm fans in an air conditioned room, with a Ryzen 3950x (that's 16 cores and 32 threads) can, with an overclock, encode 4k at about 9fps, and the CPU touches 90C. I get about 8fps without the overclock, and the CPU hits about 75-80.
If I hand the encode over to the NVENC, I get about 50fps encoding, but that's a full desktop GPU being directly fed cool air, 3 120mm intake fans blow directly in to the thing, and it hits about 70C during an encode. Also, during an encode with that GPU, Davinici Resolve hits around 90GB of RAM usage.
I don't think that Canon has defied the laws of physics, so there is SOMETHING going on here. 8k footage to HEVC, if it can be done at these frame rates for a sustained amount of time, they must have really come up with something special. Though I'll remain skeptical until I see it in action.
|
