# Price point of a 5Dmk2 replacement



## mreco99 (Sep 26, 2011)

Obviously we dont know what the spec is of a 5Dmk2 replacement (even if one ever appears) but there was lots of 'talk' about product realignment in previous posts, and a guess at new range entry costs.

All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?

I for one wouldnt, thats just too expensive, so THEN i would be getting the 5DMK2.... QUICKLY lol before they dissapeared.
I think i might just give up photography for 6 months, come back later when its all over.


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 26, 2011)

$3500 is too much for only incremental improvements. I'd start looking into the M9 or mf film even.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?



Possibly...if it had a substantially improved AF system and a faster frame rate. Unless I'd already bought a 1DsIV, that is.

Will we see a 5DIII that's more expensive than the 5DII? I'd say, almost certianly. Granted, the 5DII was released at a significantly lower price than the original 5D. But during the three years separating the 5D and 5DII, the Â¥/$ exchange rate was relatively flat. Since 2008, the yen has gained a lot on the dollar, hitting an all-time high earlier this year. That's partly behind the recent spate of increased lens prices, and I'd expect those increases to be mirrored in a 5DII replacement. $3500? Probably not. But I can certainly see a $2999 price tag for body-only.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 26, 2011)

$2500 was a huge chunk of money for me when I bought my 5DII, paying any more would be difficult. That said, my guess for the price is $3200, body only.


----------



## Meh (Sep 26, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?



Yes if it's sufficiently better than the 5D2 but that may not turn out to be the case. Regardless, I doubt it will be priced above the list price of 5D2 which is $2700 I think.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 26, 2011)

Camera prices have been falliing, but lens prices go up. Polaroid sold low priced cameras and high priced high profit film. Printer makers sell printers at or below cost and high priced toner / ink.

Expect the same price. Canon wants you to buy a FF camera and then you'll want a "L" lens to go with it. --- Gotcha ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Expect the same price. Canon wants you to buy a FF camera and then you'll want a "L" lens to go with it. --- Gotcha ;D



They've already 'got' me, with 9 L-series lenses in the kit. But if a 1DsIV comes out at the same price as the 1DsIII, I'll be a happy fellow...


----------



## ecka (Sep 26, 2011)

$2999.98 8)
IMHO, they will try to convince us that it's reasonably priced or even "cheap" ... 5D3 for less than $3000 ;D
I'm sure there are people who would pay much much more if they could get it right now (an engineering sample), just to be first.


----------



## sb (Sep 26, 2011)

I paid $3500 for 5DMk2 when it came out here in Canada in 2008 cause Canadian dollar was crap. So I'm mentally already prepared to spend the same on Mk3  Absolutely no regrets. That camera is the best thing since sliced bread, and now that it's $1999 I may get another one as backup.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2011)

> All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?



Absolutely not. But, I don't have to earn a living with my camera. And, I'm not waiting for a 5D III anyway. My 7D does everything I want and more. Compromises? Sure...but that's life.

Frankly, I think anyone who spends $3,000 on a camera body and isn't using it to earn a living ought to have his/her head examined. It's a camera for goodness sake. It won't make your life better and chances are, it won't even make your pictures that much better. I'd rather take the money and buy a plane ticket to someplace cool. In fact, that's exactly what I'm about to do later this week. 

Of course, this is from a guy who used an F1 for about 30 years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Frankly, I think anyone who spends $3,000 on a camera body and isn't using it to earn a living ought to have his/her head examined.



I did.  No abnormalities that I can see...

How many people get to take a self-portrait with a >1 million dollar camera? 8)




EXIF: GE Signa HDxt 1.5 Tesla MRI with 
8-channel birdcage coil, T1-weighted image,
spin echo sequence, TE=10 milliseconds
(sort of like 1/100 s shutter speed)

Seriously, it's all about desire and budget. For many people, a $3K camera body is an extravagant purchase. For me, it's 10 hours of consulting work...


----------



## iaind (Sep 26, 2011)

When it was released the 5D2 cost Â£2300 (Canon list price) approx$3600
Lowest UK price Â£1539 ($2450) assuming exchange rate of 1.60

A launch price of $3500 is not a bad estimate. 
Hopefully the improvements will make it a FF 7d equivalent in terms of fps and focusing points. 

1d4 comparison $7200/5700 is a bit steep for us poor enthusiasts


----------



## K-amps (Sep 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I think anyone who spends $3,000 on a camera body and isn't using it to earn a living ought to have his/her head examined.
> ...



Neuro... the frontal cortex seems a bit atrophied... or in layman speak, a bit shriveled


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2011)

> Seriously, it's all about desire and budget. For many people, a $3K camera body is an extravagant purchase. For me, it's 10 hours of consulting work...



I knew I shouldn't have majored in journalism. 

Seriously, I respect your point. I appreciate that there are people like you working to keep the economy going. We certainly need it. As a matter of fact, in my day job I work in a legislative body for people who believe you are in a better position to judge how to spend your money than they are.

But from your posts, I know you are well-balanced and realistic. My point is simply that every minute spent obsessing over the next new toy (and I certainly enjoy my toys) and thinking that will make you a better photographer is a mistake. The tools we have available to us today are so vastly superior to what has available to most of the great photographers that we really don't have any good reasons to complain.


----------



## te4o (Sep 27, 2011)

Neuro, how about income tax on the ten hours consultant work? This will make them 14 probably? 
If I'd put my scan along you'd probably see just a huge archi-cerebellum extending to the coronary line :-[.
Anyway, I think for people having the 5d2/1Ds3 a steep price to upgrade needs a significant improvement for justification - so let the 5d3 be expensive... 
For 1.6 APC users wanting to jump to FF any price below 3500 is acceptable given the projected time of usage. By the time it gets updated again, 3.5k will look like McDonalds change :-\


----------



## Meh (Sep 27, 2011)

te4o said:


> Neuro, how about income tax on the ten hours consultant work? This will make them 14 probably?
> If I'd put my scan along you'd probably see just a huge archi-cerebellum extending to the coronary line :-[.
> Anyway, I think for people having the 5d2/1Ds3 a steep price to upgrade needs a significant improvement for justification - so let the 5d3 be expensive...
> For 1.6 APC users wanting to jump to FF any price below 3500 is acceptable given the projected time of usage. By the time it gets updated again, 3.5k will look like McDonalds change :-\



Other than getting into really big lenses or multiple bodies, etc. it's not completely unaffordable... camera gear has a fairly long life span and averaged out it's not that much more than other hobbies... anyone play golf for example?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2011)

te4o said:


> Neuro, how about income tax on the ten hours consultant work? This will make them 14 probably?



Fair enough. Call it 14. 



unfocused said:


> > Seriously, it's all about desire and budget. For many people, a $3K camera body is an extravagant purchase. For me, it's 10 hours of consulting work...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew I shouldn't have majored in journalism.



It's still all relative. I could say, "I knew I shouldn't have gotten a PhD in Neuroscience," when I visit the house of friends of ours - husband and wife, both anesthesiologists. I'm not actually sure how many rooms their house has, but one of them is a music conservatory with a grand piano and seating for 40 people. He shoots with a 1DsIII, by the way...


----------



## JonJT (Sep 27, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You could say this about any non-essential purchase. yet, people still spent 20-100 times more on things that that have no more utility than an alternative that is 1/20th the price. For such people, it's a matter of emotion and disposible income. I know a few people who have 5D/5DmkIIs but, who don't earn a dime from their cameras. If the 5DmkIII has the right features, I'll become one of those people.

Myself, and the people I know who have made such purchases budget properly and dont let themselves get introuble because of a preoccupation with the best photo equipment. In the end, we all die and none of this stuff goes with us. I see no reason to be overly frugal.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Sep 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I think anyone who spends $3,000 on a camera body and isn't using it to earn a living ought to have his/her head examined.
> ...



You're not the only one .....


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> For many people, a $3K camera body is an extravagant purchase. For me, it's 10 hours of consulting work...



Well I'm glad you don't charge for contributing to this forum... according to your stat page your time here would cost more than thirty pricy 5DmkII replacements


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 27, 2011)

I enjoy your posts.

I am curious. Which of the 1 series cameras would be somewhat equivalent to a 5D 2 or 3?

Thanks.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Expect the same price. Canon wants you to buy a FF camera and then you'll want a "L" lens to go with it. --- Gotcha ;D
> ...


----------



## Zuuyi (Sep 27, 2011)

scottkinfw said:


> I enjoy your posts.
> 
> I am curious. Which of the 1 series cameras would be somewhat equivalent to a 5D 2 or 3?
> 
> ...



The 1Ds is the studio camera so that is what the 5D aspires to be. But the 1Ds has much better metering. But the 5D2 is much cheaper so it is by far a much more popular(sales) FF camera.


----------



## Sunnystate (Sep 27, 2011)

Excellent topic, and really interesting picture is emerging here. 
Looks like except hand full of professionals, some really crazy enthusiasts, may be some lawyers, dentists and yes neuroanatmist, nobody else can afford FF or in other words humble 35 mm format digital camera.
I really hope Canon, and others are not creating this elitist club with premeditation...
Good night everybody!


----------



## moreorless (Sep 27, 2011)

I'd guess alot depends on exactly where the 5D mk3 will fit into Canon's lineup, if theres a new FF body(either 6D or 3D) then theres the possibility of it being shifted up or down in spec. I wouldnt be supprized if it was the latter personally, perhaps we could end up with a lineup with 3 FF bodies(5D, 3D, 1D/1Ds) all with the same sensor but with build, AF and FPS getting progressively better ala crops?

That does seem to make sense to me since it allows Canon to exploit the market the 5D mk2 is currently tapping into with a cheaper FF body while offering something better to those wanting the AF/Build/FPS upgrades.


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 27, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> Obviously we dont know what the spec is of a 5Dmk2 replacement (even if one ever appears) but there was lots of 'talk' about product realignment in previous posts, and a guess at new range entry costs.
> 
> All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?



As noted by others before, the main question would be what would I get for that price - improved IQ ? better AF ? higher fps ?

Would I have to spend money on other extras ? E.g. would it use the LP-E6 batteries I have, or would I have to buy new spares ?

For me, it's not out of the question, but the features would definitely need to justify it.


----------



## Flake (Sep 27, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Excellent topic, and really interesting picture is emerging here.
> Looks like except hand full of professionals, some really crazy enthusiasts, may be some lawyers, dentists and yes neuroanatmist, nobody else can afford FF or in other words humble 35 mm format digital camera.
> I really hope Canon, and others are not creating this elitist club with premeditation...
> Good night everybody!



I actually hope they are! There needs to be something to separate professional photographers from the amateurs. In the film days there was medium format a totally different camera from 35mm, customers could see it wasn't an ordinary camera.

It's not necessarily about ability or creativity for clients, they want a 'light & magic show' they need to see a bagfull of kit and a fancy camera, turn up to shoot a celeb or a politician with a lesser camera and you probably won't get past security even though it'll return just as good results. A white lens and large body will open doors for you, sometimes even when you don't actually have access!

Photographic excellence can be acheived with all of the APS-C cameras, full frame is not some magical quantum leap improvement which will improve your photography, in fact it's more difficult to use properly, so the likelyhood is that for many it will make their results worse!

Some are still using film and telling the clients it's better or they only use film (for what ever pretentious reason) then charging a fortune - it doesn't have to be better, the client just has to believe that it is!


----------



## CJRodgers (Sep 27, 2011)

I earn the U.K average sallary, but i would consider it if it was packaged with a good lens at a price that made the lens discounted. It is a hobby for me, but im intending to take it seriously when I get a FF camera. I want to try and make money with the gear i buy. Not alot, just enough to justify the kit. 

Obvisouly i might never make a penny, but it comforts me that if i NEEDED to sell all of the gear, i probably wouldnt lose too much. This type of gear seems to hold value ok. So im going to give it a go for a few years and it i havent made a penny ill sell some stuff before the next cylce (5d mk4?) comes out. Hope this doesnt make me crazy


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 27, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> I earn the U.K average sallary, but i would consider it if it was packaged with a good lens at a price that made the lens discounted. It is a hobby for me, but im intending to take it seriously when I get a FF camera. I want to try and make money with the gear i buy. Not alot, just enough to justify the kit.



Dont you have a DSLR camera already? if not, i would suggest taking the cheaper route first, a 600d or 7D first, (or other manufacturer equivalent)
If you do have a DSLR already, you can be making money with that first also. If you cant sell images with a lesser DLSR, chances are a semi pro DSLR isnt going to help you.


----------



## elflord (Sep 27, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Excellent topic, and really interesting picture is emerging here.
> Looks like except hand full of professionals, some really crazy enthusiasts, may be some lawyers, dentists and yes neuroanatmist, nobody else can afford FF or in other words humble 35 mm format digital camera.
> I really hope Canon, and others are not creating this elitist club with premeditation...
> Good night everybody!



Price of entry to "full frame goodness" is quite a bit lower than the cost of a new 5D Mark II. If you're willing to go with film, the EOS 3 is about $300 now. It works with EOS mount lenses and has a good autofocus system. If you really _want_ digital (no one really _needs_ digital except possibly pros and only because they are competing with other pros who have digital) , used 5D classics sell for about $1000 or so -- about the price of a new 60D.

About the "elite club" -- it boils down to whether you want to take great photos, or crank out pictures on a tight schedule that meet the expectations of clients. For pros, the latter is important but for amateurs, it isn't . So pro equipment won't necessarily produce the best results (what it will do is produce quick gratification which is why everyone wants it) 

If you really do want to turn pro, then you're looking at it as a business startup cost. The cost of a 5D Mark II looks expensive compared to discretionary income, but it is not expensive by the standards that you'd measure business startup costs.


----------



## CJRodgers (Sep 27, 2011)

I have a nikon d90 with a couple of lens'. Well its my friends, but he gave me it about 2 years ago as he wasnt using it. Im always concious when im using it that its not really mine, so ive never tried to do anything professional with it. So i dont have lots of my own kit but i wouldnt say im a beginner. I want to work my way up to doing music vidoes and weddings stills or videos, and i much prefer the images from a canon to what i use now. Id buy a 5dmkii now if it werent for aliasing on video.


Your right i could try and sell images, but i didnt think there was much money in stock images?


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 27, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> I have a nikon d90 with a couple of lens'. Well its my friends, but he gave me it about 2 years ago as he wasnt using it. Im always concious when im using it that its not really mine, so ive never tried to do anything professional with it. So i dont have lots of my own kit but i wouldnt say im a beginner. I want to work my way up to doing music vidoes and weddings stills or videos, and i much prefer the images from a canon to what i use now. Id buy a 5dmkii now if it werent for aliasing on video.
> 
> 
> Your right i could try and sell images, but i didnt think there was much money in stock images?



Depends what you call 'much money' and how good you are and how much effort you want to put in. The scale goes from wealthy induviduals to people with expensive kit who couldnt scrap enough sales together for a Big Mac.
A D90 is more than enough to be able to sell images as stock. I do just fine with a 450D, on a part time basis, selling as a hobby.


----------



## CJRodgers (Sep 27, 2011)

OK well ill definaltey look into selling as stock then. What do you think it the most apporpriate canon to invest in then? Maybe a 60D? I want to own my kit is the thing. Any recommendations on stock websites that are good to sell to if i have enough talent.


----------



## photophreek (Sep 27, 2011)

The 5d3 at $2999 would be fine with me. 

How each of us spend our money on what is a very personal decision. One post stated that spending this amount of money on a camera doesn't make sense to them and the poster would rather spend the money on going somewhere sunny. I chuckled when I read that, because I would not spend that amount of money on a vacation. Not saying that travelling is a waste of money, but that it is all relative.


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 27, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> OK well ill definaltey look into selling as stock then. What do you think it the most apporpriate canon to invest in then? Maybe a 60D? I want to own my kit is the thing. Any recommendations on stock websites that are good to sell to if i have enough talent.



sent you a PM


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 27, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> ..... Id buy a 5dmkii now if it werent for aliasing on video.



You can get filters to deal with moire and anti aliasing.


----------



## CJRodgers (Sep 27, 2011)

Is it software or hardware filters your talking about? I just seen pn phillip blooms blog a filter that gets rid of it pretty much but i dont know if its for sale yet?

Thanks 

Craig


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 27, 2011)

Hardware filter, i just cant find the link right now, but looks impressive


----------



## dgsphto (Sep 27, 2011)

No reason why it should be $2999.99. At it's launch, the 5Dmk2 was missing a lot of things and was way over priced in that sense. Canon just needs to include what it trimmed from the 5Dmk2 at that same price level. 

Honestly, take the sensor and Image processing of 5Dmk2 and everything else from 7D and it should meet the needs of most people. Don't tell me that a 7D with it's sensor traded up for the one from 5Dmk2 with updated firmware should cost more that 7D cost + $300. The only other area for costs should be developing better metering system but Canon has been recovering that for the past couple of generations of DSLRs since 2006/2007 and, to me, have to deliver now without presenting it as an incremental cost to the consumers!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2011)

dgsphto said:


> Don't tell me that a 7D with it's sensor traded up for the one from 5Dmk2 with updated firmware should cost more that 7D cost + $300.



Just based on geometry, from a round silicon wafer (the source material for CMOS sensors) you can get around 5 times as many APS-C sensors as FF sensors, and due to the greater impact of random imperfections on a larger sensor, a lower percentage of FF sensors will pass QC. Based on just the sensor, I'd expect greater than just a $300 differential, all else being equal.


----------



## dgsphto (Sep 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgsphto said:
> 
> 
> > Don't tell me that a 7D with it's sensor traded up for the one from 5Dmk2 with updated firmware should cost more that 7D cost + $300.
> ...



Wikipedia lists the yields from a 8" wafer at 112 APS-C sensors to 30 FF sensors. So I am inclined to think that it's about 4:1 ratio after all things said and done.

The price to replace a sensor on a 5D is about $1K ball park. This is Canon's sale cost to the consumer. 

Parts, especially consumer electronics, are marked up at a huge premium (about 50% to 60% margin of sale costs based on some readings in the past on the net), so I would think it would cost Canon to about $400 a piece, if that, to make it. 

How much do you think it would cost Canon to make a APS-C sensor? $100 maybe (at the 1:4 ratio).


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 28, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Excellent topic, and really interesting picture is emerging here.
> Looks like except hand full of professionals, some really crazy enthusiasts, may be some lawyers, dentists and yes neuroanatmist, nobody else can afford FF or in other words humble 35 mm format digital camera.
> I really hope Canon, and others are not creating this elitist club with premeditation...
> Good night everybody!



just last week i sold a 5D MK2 with an 70-200mm f4 to an 19 year old student.
he works at fast food chain to get money for his hobby. 

he said all his friends spend their money on cars. he spends it on photo gear.

my brother bought a 5000 euro PC workstation that, with some luck, is worth 2500 euros next year. 
people spend money on things that are important for them.

my neighbor has spend 30000 euros on kois.... thatÂ´s crazy! ;D


----------



## dgsphto (Sep 28, 2011)

dgsphto said:


> .....so I would think it would cost Canon to about $400 a piece, if that, to make it.....



Looks like I was very close in my estimates:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/223-the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors


----------



## JonJT (Sep 28, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Excellent topic, and really interesting picture is emerging here.
> Looks like except hand full of professionals, some really crazy enthusiasts, may be some lawyers, dentists and yes neuroanatmist, nobody else can afford FF or in other words humble 35 mm format digital camera.
> I really hope Canon, and others are not creating this elitist club with premeditation...
> Good night everybody!



Eh. I'm a young, gainfully employed engineer. Two of the young people i know who have 5D/5Diis are also engineers.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 28, 2011)

dgsphto said:


> dgsphto said:
> 
> 
> > .....so I would think it would cost Canon to about $400 a piece, if that, to make it.....
> ...



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2011)

dgsphto said:


> dgsphto said:
> 
> 
> > .....so I would think it would cost Canon to about $400 a piece, if that, to make it.....
> ...



Close in your cost estimate, at least based on that analysis.



dgsphto said:


> Wikipedia lists the yields from a 8" wafer at 112 APS-C sensors to 30 FF sensors. So I am inclined to think that it's about 4:1 ratio after all things said and done.
> 
> The price to replace a sensor on a 5D is about $1K ball park. This is Canon's sale cost to the consumer.
> 
> ...



But the referenced article actually estimates a ~10:1 ratio (much higher than mine, which was a little higher than yours). IIRC, Canon's white paper on FF sensors mentioned ~200 APS-C per wafer, vs. 20 FF, and that doesn't account for lost yield due to defects.

Also, you're right about the huge markup, and recall that the original statement that launched this discussion was, "_Don't tell me that a 7D with it's sensor traded up for the one from 5Dmk2 with updated firmware should cost more that 7D cost + $300._" So, while your $400 estimate for the cost of a FF sensor was very close, that $300 difference (or $350 based on the linked article) will translate closer to around a $600 difference. When you then add in the additional costs for other components that need to be larger (pentaprism, mirror/shutter assembly, etc.), and mark them up appropraitely, you will likely arrive somewhere in the $900-1000 range. Not coincidentally, that's the cost difference between the 7D and the 5DII...


----------



## dgsphto (Sep 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ....When you then add in the additional costs for other components that need to be larger (pentaprism, mirror/shutter assembly, etc.), and mark them up appropraitely, you will likely arrive somewhere in the $900-1000 range. Not coincidentally, that's the cost difference between the 7D and the 5DII...



The incremental cost difference is not that high. I don't see why the prism has to be larger. Shutter, yes, but I bet that it costs almost the same to build either an APS-C shutter and a FF shutter everything else (shutter life, max speeds, etc.) being equal.

A lot of the cost difference between 7D and 5D2 is profits and not costs! 

That's exactly my point. People need to shake off that mentality that the price differences are justified. Agreed without an argument that costs are higher on 5D2, but not by $1000. More like $300 if you compare 7D to 5Dmk2 is my take!

Anyway, this discussion is moot  Canon's very greedy...we all know that! We have seen it with the 5Dmk2 launch. I think they are getting into a product cycle that's like Intel's "tick-tock". MP/Sensor --> Features --> MP/Sensor --> Features.....


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's still all relative. I could say, "I knew I shouldn't have gotten a PhD in Neuroscience," when I visit the house of friends of ours - husband and wife, both anesthesiologists. I'm not actually sure how many rooms their house has, but one of them is a music conservatory with a grand piano and seating for 40 people. He shoots with a 1DsIII, by the way...



1. AFAIK, doctors prefer to specialize in areas with more more glory than being an anesthesiologist, which results in shortage, read higher salaries.

2. Never rule out the possibility of getting the money elsewhere, say inheritance or winning the lottery.

[I'm not joking - a local reporter did an article on people who got first prizes in the lottery, I guess the lottery gave their details with their permission, and there was at least one guy who guessed the all numbers twice. He spent all the money, demonstrating that a fool and his money will soon depart.]


----------



## Rocky (Sep 29, 2011)

My calculation is: $300 difference between FF and APS-C, $300 for larger prism, larger shutter, lager mirror, larger body (compared to 7D). Assuming that the 5DIII have all the features of 7D then, the 5DIII should be $600 above 7D. The current 5DII have less feature than the 7D and sells about $1000 above the 7D. Therefore the 5DII is over priced. Canon should be able to sell the 5DIII at about $2200. Since 5dIII is a FF, Canon may price it at $2800 for deeper profit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2011)

dgsphto said:


> I don't see why the prism has to be larger.



You're right, it doesn't have to be larger on the 5DIII, as Canon could certainly choose to reduce viewfinder magnification from what the 5DII offers. But currently, the 7D, APS-C sensor, 1.0x magnification, 100% coverage. FF is larger than APS-C by a diagonal factor of 1.6x, so the 7D's prism on a FF sensor would mean 1.0/1.6 = 0.625x magnification with 100% coverage, or with 98% coverage, 0.64x. The 5DII is 98% coverage and 0.71x magnification, therefore the prism is bigger (and the 1DsIII is 0.76x). 

You can just set the cameras side-by-side and see that the 'bump' in the housing is larger on the 5DII.







But on the whole, your viewpoint makes sense...especially the part about Canon being greedy. :-X


----------



## elflord (Sep 29, 2011)

Rocky said:


> My calculation is: $300 difference between FF and APS-C, $300 for larger prism, larger shutter, lager mirror, larger body (compared to 7D). Assuming that the 5DIII have all the features of 7D then, the 5DIII should be $600 above 7D. The current 5DII have less feature than the 7D and sells about $1000 above the 7D. Therefore the 5DII is over priced. Canon should be able to sell the 5DIII at about $2200. Since 5dIII is a FF, Canon may price it at $2800 for deeper profit.



Canon have manufacturing costs (per body produced) but they also have fixed R&D costs. How do they distribute those between the different models ? For example, if the R&D costs average $200 per camera sold, does that mean that entry level powershots "should" cost $200 plus manufacturing costs plus markup ? If you don't want to pay for the R&D, then why are we discussing prices of a model that doesn't even exist yet ? The way it ultimately works is that the way those costs are distributed among their models depends on relative supply and demand for the different models. Higher end models (those where a price increase doesn't hurt sales as much) are likely to cover more of these costs. 

In terms of manufacturing costs alone -- Sony has already sold a full frame camera for $2000 (the A850). So it is likely that it is _possible_ to get full frame cameras on the shelves for $2000 a piece with 0 _marginal cost per unit_ to the manufacturer. 

But pricing does not depend on marginal production costs alone. It depends partly on fixed costs and partly on supply and demand economics (and these interact as fixed costs are likely to be distributed based on demand). The 5D Mark I has similar full frame hardware to the 5D Mark II, yet it is "underpriced" at $1000. The reason is that there is limited demand for an older model.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 29, 2011)

elflord said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > My calculation is: $300 difference between FF and APS-C, $300 for larger prism, larger shutter, lager mirror, larger body (compared to 7D). Assuming that the 5DIII have all the features of 7D then, the 5DIII should be $600 above 7D. The current 5DII have less feature than the 7D and sells about $1000 above the 7D. Therefore the 5DII is over priced. Canon should be able to sell the 5DIII at about $2200. Since 5dIII is a FF, Canon may price it at $2800 for deeper profit.
> ...



A lot of times, people setting the prices are not rocket scientists (surprise surprise). They do not create sophisticated price elasticity models... I implement financial package (ERP) applications in Fortune 500 companies, and it amazes me how rudimentary their cost allocation models are. Most of the time, R&D is considered a period cost and allocated based as a percentage of selling price or product cost, then a margin is added on top of that.

If one went purely with R&D allocation, it would not inflate the prices of the higher end models as much, what does inflate those costs is the % of Mark-up tacked on. Herein comes the art of pricing, the mark-up.

A product manager for lets say a rebel line will work on what he has to work with given his product range and not worry about pricing for the pro series, he will have sales targets (the smarter companies will have profitability targets): These Targets at times are not always set to maximize profitability, but at times are set to mantain market share and customer base till the next model comes along. The real money is made from the higher margin products, therefore for consumers, the higher end models do "rightly" seem over priced, and they are.

I am not sure if the FF's prism is 40% larger that it costs 40% more as well... the cost of material is negligible in this case, the cost over overhead would be about the same, the cost of labor might be the same or even more for the smaller prism (depending how it is manufactured). But I do get that the yields on the sensors follow a different set of rules.

A $500-600 differential between a 7D to 5D class camera (other things being the same) might be justified, the rest is fluff and mark-up!


----------



## elflord (Sep 30, 2011)

K-amps said:


> A lot of times, people setting the prices are not rocket scientists (surprise surprise). They do not create sophisticated price elasticity models... I implement financial package (ERP) applications in Fortune 500 companies, and it amazes me how rudimentary their cost allocation models are. Most of the time, R&D is considered a period cost and allocated based as a percentage of selling price or product cost, then a margin is added on top of that.
> 
> If one went purely with R&D allocation, it would not inflate the prices of the higher end models as much, what does inflate those costs is the % of Mark-up tacked on. Herein comes the art of pricing, the mark-up.
> 
> A product manager for lets say a rebel line will work on what he has to work with given his product range and not worry about pricing for the pro series, he will have sales targets (the smarter companies will have profitability targets): These Targets at times are not always set to maximize profitability, but at times are set to mantain market share and customer base till the next model comes along. The real money is made from the higher margin products, therefore for consumers, the higher end models do "rightly" seem over priced, and they are.



I agree that the people who set the prices probably aren't that sophisticated. I notice for example that the refurbished prices are uniformly 20% discounted from new price, even though on high end items this has them undercutting street prices on used items. 

However, at some level, demand driven pricing kicks in. They at least understand the need to price their items "competitively" and that they could lose a lot of sales if they don't. They fine tune their prices as necessary as demand slacks through rebate programs. It might seem simplistic, but if you were to go and deploy a sophisticated model, you usually need a human being to step in at some point and update the model inputs.

Whether or not the manufacturer allocates R&D proportionately to revenue for different products or uses some other mechanism is somewhat orthogonal to my point -- which is that you can't meaningfully choose any per-unit allocation of R&D costs, because the marginal R&D cost per unit is 0. 

So it makes perfect sense for them to crank out the cheaper models as long as the marginal revenues exceed the marginal costs. That is, they don't have to pay the R&D bills with their point and shoots for it to be worth it to produce them. But they do this understanding that these units aren't going to be cash cows for them. 

The cheaper models do have something in common with more expensive models -- they are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The big difference is that the demand curve looks quite a bit different -- they are dealing with a very price sensitive market. 

So whether you attribute it to R&D allocation or "markup" or whatever, the fact remains that they can't jack up prices on cheap models very much without killing sales. So pricing is very much dependent on demand. 



> A $500-600 differential between a 7D to 5D class camera (other things being the same) might be justified, the rest is fluff and mark-up!



If that's the case, why doesn't someone get out there and corner the market with a sub $2000 full frame camera ? If you're right and a less expensive smaller sensor camera is good enough to keep the lights on, then why is it that Olympus and Panasonic let standard 4/3 die, Pentax (APS-C and medium format only) were bought out, while the full frame models are still going strong ?

It seems to me we're talking about the same thing -- prices are driven by demand (and not the "demands" of forum posters)


----------



## Rocky (Sep 30, 2011)

Sony did it with a $2000 FF.


----------



## elflord (Sep 30, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Sony did it with a $2000 FF.



Yes, I know they released a $2000 full frame camera which I addressed it in my earlier post. Quoting myself: 



> In terms of manufacturing costs alone -- Sony has already sold a full frame camera for $2000 (the A850). So it is likely that it is _possible_ to get full frame cameras on the shelves for $2000 a piece with _0 marginal cost per unit_ to the manufacturer.
> 
> But pricing does not depend on marginal production costs alone. It depends partly on fixed costs and partly on supply and demand economics



However, they didn't exactly corner the full frame market. The A850 was so successful that they pulled the model less than two years after its launch. 

Does the A850 hold the record for the shortest lived full frame DSLR ?


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 30, 2011)

How much of that was because it was Sony?

When it comes to DSLRs I think Canon/Nikon and then maybe Pentax. Sony I think more of the P&S crowd. As a whole I think it is easier to move someone out of a D3100 or a T2i into a entry FF like the rumors are saying Canon has coming, then jump into the Sony Alpha line...

When it comes down to it, at least for me, part of the biggest selling point is Glass. Nikon and Canon have huge arsenals and such a wide range... It is easier for me to step into a system that I can grow into and upgrade both in bodies and glass, than one that is very limited


----------



## K-amps (Sep 30, 2011)

elflord said:


> If that's the case, why doesn't someone get out there and corner the market with a sub $2000 full frame camera ? If you're right and a less expensive smaller sensor camera is good enough to keep the lights on, then why is it that Olympus and Panasonic let standard 4/3 die, Pentax (APS-C and medium format only) were bought out, while the full frame models are still going strong ?
> 
> It seems to me we're talking about the same thing -- prices are driven by demand (and not the "demands" of forum posters)



Agreed: Its demand driven. To be specific...

Why do we care about FF? Why not have a 30x20mm sensor as a standard? Why are train tracks the width they are? Why are they the width of 2 horses thethered side by side? Many things are a result of backward compatibility... 

In this case, it boils down to the investment in 35mm Glass we all have.... not necessarily the true cost of the FF body. Canon (like any other business) is cashing in on this hitched loyalty. It might also explain why the other formats are dropping off... they do not have enough people out there with 4/3 glass to use perhaps.

There seems to be enough demand for APS-C and FF for these formats to live for the time being. Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses.... but I Digress.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses.... but I Digress.



Good enough? I suppose that's debateable. But they are certainly popular enough right now...and I'd argue that we've already seen the shift from EF to EF-S lenses. How many non-L EF lenses has Canon released lately? The last one was the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM in 2005 - and that's the only one in the last 10 years (the one before that was the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, in 2000).

Going forward, I expect we'll see only L lenses and EF-S lenses released or updated. FF will be around for a long time - even with improvements in noise and DR (with the former limited by the ongoing trend for rising MP counts), there are limits on DoF and due to diffraction with APS-C. So, the L lenses for those with FF cameras, and EF-S lenses for everyone else.


----------



## ecka (Sep 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses.... but I Digress.
> ...


I think you are right. There may be no new non-L EF lenses in the future. Canon's new 100L Macro and 70-300L somewhat confirms this theory. However, if this is really happening, then we should see some new EF-S primes coming soon (I hope).


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 30, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses....



In the longer term, I believe the opposite will happen  It seems reasonable that, in the future, the cost for producing sensors will go down more quickly than the cost for producing optics. When the optics becomes the dominant cost of a consumer camera (as indeed used to be the case not so long ago, and already is for the most expensive lenses), it will be cheaper to produce a big-sensor camera with simpler optics for the same IQ as a more compact camera with a smaller sensor. I already envision toy cameras with Nikon V1-like colour diversity and both house and lens entirely plastic, containing a full-frame sensor and producing better IQ than today's best compacts


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses....
> ...



Long term, I think that's probably the case. But I suspect that's several years in the future, at best. Canon may enter the MF market before that, to maintain a high end product line, assuming FF sensors become a consumer standard.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 30, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Once APS-C sensors are good enough with low noise & high DR, I think we will see a shift from EF to EF-S lenses....
> ...



Made the assertion with the cost of EF lenses, not the sensor


----------



## elflord (Oct 1, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> How much of that was because it was Sony?



Sony continue to produce a full frame camera at a similar price point to the D700 and the 5D Mark II. Sony didn't kill it because they can't produce full frame cameras, they killed it because they came to the same conclusion as everyone else who manufactures full frame bodies -- a $2000 full frame body isn't a winning proposition for the manufacturer. 



> Sony I think more of the P&S crowd



Perhaps because they don't have as much history as Canon/Nikon/Pentax ? However, they do make full frame cameras (just not in the $2000 price range) and (unlike their mirrorless) their SLR mount has a pretty decent lens lineup. Not perhaps as comprehensive as Canon and Nikon but they touch all the right bases.


----------



## Joseph (Oct 10, 2011)

I think the 5d mark III needs to have a steeper price point , and for that extra money - give it a DAMN dual CPU !!!!!


----------



## kenken (Oct 12, 2011)

I think the 5D mark III will be cheaper than 5D mark II retail. I'm guessing 2200.00 to 2400.00. How much was 5Dc retail? 3299? and 5D II was 2699? 2399.00 5D mark II is a very good guess


----------



## distant.star (Oct 12, 2011)

What's the difference between a price and a price point?


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

distant.star said:


> What's the difference between a price and a price point?



It is like use and usage. The longer one is so much cooler to say. Hey why not utilize the price point to make a cost benefit analysis prior to acquisition.

Actually it has a specific meaning in when talking macroeconomics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_point, but used here it's just an attempt to sound cool.


----------

