Canon R7

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Distinctly Average Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Canon R7

thunder storm wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

PicPocket wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Sadly enough it fits the pattern perfectly. And maybe this time it isn't even crippling. Let's say the 32Mp sensor costs 300 euro less to produce than the 20Mp sensor of the R6. The R6 is 2500 euro now. Would you buy the R6 body with that 32Mp sensor for 2200 euro?

I mean, compared to the introduction price of the 7DmkII that's a stiff introduction price. To get at an introduction price of 1600 euro that production costs of the sensor should be 900 euro less than the full frame 20Mp sensor to get the same margin. That's a lot.

But that is not how it works. The margins are not same. A 1D and 7D never had same margin. Pricing isn't solely dependent on cost, but also on what people will pay and how they can maximize profitability balancing margins with volumr.

I'm not debating this, but at the end of the day margin * volume is the reason for producing a camera or not.

Then there is ecosystem. Canon should rather have an ecosystem where users can fulfill all their needs within that ecosystem, then to constantly look to other vendors for options. Unlike the forum here, Canon isn't going to argue with their consumers on why it's ok to not have an APS C. People who need it will find it if the competition provides it and that's a loss which is worse than selling at slightly smaller margin.

It depends. This is a valid argument as it's about expensive lenses here. However: Some people will go to another brand. Some people will accept the price of the R5. I don't know which one is the biggest group, but I do understand this is a coin with two sides.

Besides, the $300 / $900 are just convenient numbers to support an argument. We don't know what Canon can do. Both may be right even if we guess it wrong. There is no basis

You're right, there's no basis, absolutely. Just a thought experiment.

It is not just about the price of the body. If Canon releases an R7 with similar specs bar 8K to the R5, then I am happy to pay close to R5 money. Why? Well the cost is not just in the body, but the lens. I can happily walk 15k up a mountain to photograph mountain hares etc with a 100-400 and a crop camera. That is not something I could do with an R5, a 600mm and a tripod to get similar pixels on the subject. The cost differential between those two setups is both big in money, but more importantly, weight. If I am going to a hide close to my car, on safari from a 4x4 or in a setup situation then I am happy with the latter, but for me that is rarely the case.

I believe you. Good arguments. But the million dollar question is: how many would be willing to pay as much as you do.

From the various threads, as well as people I talk to in the field, quite a few. We would all like it to be cheaper, but people really are clamouring for a camera like this.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow