Tech Tips by Chuck Westfall

[John Sheehy]

after all those gibberish claims about 50D being 1 stop better than
the camera it replaces.

He came through once and accelerated the fix of a DPP bug, but generally speaking, he just seems to be a business guy who is a mouthpiece for the Company.

--
John

 

[Badbatz]

I have a 1DM3 and various other Canon DSLRs including a 5D. I both
agree and disagree. Yes the performance of the 1D series is a large
step above the 5D as well as the 5DM2 but some of the features could
be "trickled down" for little to no additional cost. Features like
5, 7 and 9 auto-bracketing and multiple spot meter readings are just
firmware.

Some can be trickled down cheaply, but a huge mirror box/prism/viewfinder, for example, cost serious money. And don't forget that 1Ds3 is an 18 month old camera (I start counting from the release of 1D3, pretty much the same body) so I certainly hope that 5D2 has "a few" way more technologicaly advanced features. But if you shoot with 1Ds3 and 5D, you know the difference...The gap has narrowed a bit with 5D2 but has by no means closed.

I think there is just a lot of frustration out there from
photographers hoping that Canon would really wow the competition but
it didn't happen.

Well, yes. I, too, would like a 1Ds3 for 2600 dollars but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Still, for the vast majority oif shooters 5D2 is a "better" camera.

 

[Mark Barbieri]

I'm baffled. How can Canon set an artifical price? What is the real price if not the price that Canon sets? Companies don't set prices based on production costs and reasonable margins. Companies price things to maximize their profits. They drive production costs as low as possible (subject to market driven quality constraints) and raise prices as high as possible (subject to market driven sales constraints). That's business 101.

I appreciate your input to what I said, but I never said that Canon
was manipulating the market. I'm saying the price differential
between the 5DMKII and the 1Ds MKIII is artificial and not justified
by reasonable margins and production costs. You're absolutely right,
when there's no other game in town, they can charge whatever they
want. You could say the same thing about the guy selling water for
$40 a gallon during a drought.

That's why I've mentioned in a couple of posts that it's good that
Nikon's back in the game to put pressure on Canon's prices. I'll
vote with my dollar in the future and I'll remember who broke it off
in the consumer just because they were the only game in town. All
things being equal (features, etc.) I'll go with the one that didn't
try to kill me on price just because they could. That's not
penalizing a company. That's a free market.

Like the old saying goes, you can fleece a sheep many times, but you
can only skin it once.

 

[natureman]

I have a 1DM3 and various other Canon DSLRs including a 5D. I both
agree and disagree. Yes the performance of the 1D series is a large
step above the 5D as well as the 5DM2 but some of the features could
be "trickled down" for little to no additional cost. Features like
5, 7 and 9 auto-bracketing and multiple spot meter readings are just
firmware.

Some can be trickled down cheaply, but a huge mirror
box/prism/viewfinder, for example, cost serious money.

Why does it cost "serious money"? I see a lot of stuff being said on these forums about certain things costing way more money, but why do they cost way more money? Is it because they actually do cost more money or because the camera companies manipulate people into believing that they do cost more money?

I'm assuming that you mean it costs the camera company "serious money" to manufacture those things, compared to what it costs to manufacture the same or similar parts in much lower priced cameras.

And don't
forget that 1Ds3 is an 18 month old camera (I start counting from the
release of 1D3, pretty much the same body) so I certainly hope that
5D2 has "a few" way more technologicaly advanced features. But if you
shoot with 1Ds3 and 5D, you know the difference...The gap has
narrowed a bit with 5D2 but has by no means closed.

I think there is just a lot of frustration out there from
photographers hoping that Canon would really wow the competition but
it didn't happen.

Well, yes. I, too, would like a 1Ds3 for 2600 dollars but that ain't
gonna happen anytime soon. Still, for the vast majority oif shooters
5D2 is a "better" camera.

 

[Victor Engel]

Why does it cost "serious money"? I see a lot of stuff being said on
these forums about certain things costing way more money, but why do
they cost way more money?

It's because people are willing to spend that amount of money. If they weren't, then either the camera would be cheaper or it wouldn't exist.

--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

 

[clarksbrother]

I've stayed away from commenting thus far because this has descended into another *****-fest but I figure I'd add my two cents...

The real question is whether or not companies can justify charging X amount for a product, the question is whether or not you can justify PAYING X amount for a product. If you can, great. If you can't, let your wallet do the talking. These things have a marvelous way of working themselves out. If no one buys product A because it costs so much...you better believe if they can, a company will lower the price on product A so people actually buy it.

 

[RobertSigmund]

Yeah, a manly word - and if you don't like it, go to North Korea, you liberal democrat!

 

[Kabe Luna]

...because I know it's overpriced and I refuse to encourage Canon to keep it overpriced. And it's not just the cost of the camera body, but they'll lose out selling me lots of lenses that I will instead have to purchase from another brand.

Sure, what do they care, but if enough people do the same...

I've stayed away from commenting thus far because this has descended
into another *****-fest but I figure I'd add my two cents...

The real question is whether or not companies can justify charging X
amount for a product, the question is whether or not you can justify
PAYING X amount for a product. If you can, great. If you can't, let
your wallet do the talking. These things have a marvelous way of
working themselves out. If no one buys product A because it costs so
much...you better believe if they can, a company will lower the price
on product A so people actually buy it.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[Badbatz]

I'm assuming that you mean it costs the camera company "serious
money" to manufacture those things, compared to what it costs to
manufacture the same or similar parts in much lower priced cameras.

Yep. And 10 minutes with a 1Ds3 vs. 5D/5D2 will tell you that the 1Ds3 has to be a more expensive camera because you just can't get the fetures, materials and manufacturing quality for much less money than the $8K. Yes, perhaps 1Ds4 will cost less than $8K, but don't expect it in the $3K range. Again, the market segment served by the 1Ds3 is not that price sensitive: I don't give a hoot how much it costs, it is a tool that makes enough $$$ to cover its cost very rapidly, the big bad employer pays for it and the equipment is cheap comparing to other costs (like $5-10K per day location shoots...)

Generally, comparisons between the 5D and 1Ds series are amusing because people on the market for a 5D class camera seldom buy 1Ds series and for most users of the 1Ds series buying a 5D class camera is a function of need or want, not its affordability. Different markets, diffrent needs, different wants, different means.

 

[Badbatz]

How about the fact that you can now get the same 21.1MP chip (in
fact, a claimed superior version of it) in a $2700 camera. Nikon
offers equivalent, if not better, AF performance and
weather-resistance, as well as more features in a $4500 full frame
camera. Sony is offering more pixels and more features in a full
frame camera for $3000. In all of these instances, there is nothing
the 1DsIII offers that can consistently account for the additional
expense.

Except the fact that both Sony and Nikon twenty-something megapixels cameras are vaporware and 1Ds3 exists and has existed for 18 months (1D3 is almost excatly the same camera body that was relesed a year and a half ago) and 5D2 has perhaps 505 of the feature set of the 1Ds3...

I sense sour grapes here but, hey, whateva!

 

[bronxbombers]

I'm assuming that you mean it costs the camera company "serious
money" to manufacture those things, compared to what it costs to
manufacture the same or similar parts in much lower priced cameras.

Yep. And 10 minutes with a 1Ds3 vs. 5D/5D2 will tell you that the
1Ds3 has to be a more expensive camera because you just can't get the
fetures, materials and manufacturing quality for much less money than
the $8K. Yes, perhaps 1Ds4 will cost less than $8K, but don't expect
it in the $3K range. Again, the market segment served by the 1Ds3 is
not that price sensitive: I don't give a hoot how much it costs, it
is a tool that makes enough $$$ to cover its cost very rapidly, the
big bad employer pays for it and the equipment is cheap comparing to
other costs (like $5-10K per day location shoots...)

what??

the 1dmkiii is half the cost and it has the same build and the 5dmkii has the same (only slightly better even) sensor and a FF shutter/mirror assembly doesn't cost $2500 more than an APS-H one.

some of the top film EOS had the same build and they were like $1800 and obviously had FF shutter/mirror and top AF module of the day. Goign buy how they priced film bodies the top AF and top end shutter/mirror didn't add more than $1000 (and they also had to have a faster mechanical drive to pull the film back then too which was a big part of it too).

the D700 has a fast FF shutter and mirror box

maybe they know the best way to gain every last cent and are doing what they need to be doing and they know they can push people rather far before it ever comes back to haunt them, but don't claim that they couldnt sell the 1dsmkiii for a profit for WAY, WAY less, certainly now that the sensor is in the 5dmkii and the economy of scale for that has changed.

anyway i don't even like the 1ds myself since it is too bulky for me for much of the stuff i do and just becomes bothersome, i'd rather see a 5d level body with a bit faster shutter/mirror and an old 1 series AF module type cam. that would be my ideal. and they dont have to go to the expense of 100% VF coverage and .76x, just keep it 5d-like to save costs there.

 

[natureman]

How about the fact that you can now get the same 21.1MP chip (in
fact, a claimed superior version of it) in a $2700 camera. Nikon
offers equivalent, if not better, AF performance and
weather-resistance, as well as more features in a $4500 full frame
camera. Sony is offering more pixels and more features in a full
frame camera for $3000. In all of these instances, there is nothing
the 1DsIII offers that can consistently account for the additional
expense.

Except the fact that both Sony and Nikon twenty-something megapixels
cameras are vaporware

The Sony 24mp A900 is vaporware??

and 1Ds3 exists and has existed for 18 months
(1D3 is almost excatly the same camera body that was relesed a year
and a half ago) and 5D2 has perhaps 505 of the feature set of the
1Ds3...

I sense sour grapes here but, hey, whateva!

 

[Garrett Lucas]

I'm baffled. How can Canon set an artifical price? What is the real
price if not the price that Canon sets?

Wow! You really got me there with that clever turn of phrase. You know exactly what I'm talking about and being intentionally obtuse doesn't change the fact that there is not $5300.00 worth of difference between the two cameras.

Companies don't set prices

based on production costs and reasonable margins. Companies price
things to maximize their profits. They drive production costs as low
as possible (subject to market driven quality constraints) and raise
prices as high as possible (subject to market driven sales
constraints). That's business 101.

Thanks for the summary, but I made it past business 101. I worked in an executive position for a top ten company for over ten years, so I know all about what companies base their prices upon. I already said that Canon can charge whatever they want. But, there is also a thing called backlash when there finally is competition and there is also that concept of good will and value that keeps people brand loyal. First, the competition will drive down prices, and second, people will remember the companies that charged obscene prices just because they could. Then, people will vote with their dollars.

Again, as I already said, it's a free market here. They're free to do what they want, as am I. I'm also free to comment on their price structure and the fact that they are breaking it off in people right now just because they can.

Thanks, though.

I appreciate your input to what I said, but I never said that Canon
was manipulating the market. I'm saying the price differential
between the 5DMKII and the 1Ds MKIII is artificial and not justified
by reasonable margins and production costs. You're absolutely right,
when there's no other game in town, they can charge whatever they
want. You could say the same thing about the guy selling water for
$40 a gallon during a drought.

That's why I've mentioned in a couple of posts that it's good that
Nikon's back in the game to put pressure on Canon's prices. I'll
vote with my dollar in the future and I'll remember who broke it off
in the consumer just because they were the only game in town. All
things being equal (features, etc.) I'll go with the one that didn't
try to kill me on price just because they could. That's not
penalizing a company. That's a free market.

Like the old saying goes, you can fleece a sheep many times, but you
can only skin it once.

 

[Garrett Lucas]

I'm assuming that you mean it costs the camera company "serious
money" to manufacture those things, compared to what it costs to
manufacture the same or similar parts in much lower priced cameras.

Yep. And 10 minutes with a 1Ds3 vs. 5D/5D2 will tell you that the
1Ds3 has to be a more expensive camera because you just can't get the
fetures, materials and manufacturing quality for much less money than

the $8K. Is that right? Perhaps you can explain how they got those features into the $1800.00 1V? How are those features available in the 1D range at 4K when they're charging $5300 more for the 1Ds MKII than the 5D MKII.

Generally, comparisons between the 5D and 1Ds series are amusing
because people on the market for a 5D class camera seldom buy 1Ds
series and for most users of the 1Ds series buying a 5D class camera
is a function of need or want, not its affordability. Different
markets, diffrent needs, different wants, different means.

What's amusing is that everyone keeps missing the point. I and others like me are not in the 5D market. We're in the market for something between the 5D MKII and the 1Ds MKIII. You're right, different needs, and so forth. I don't want a cinder block sized camera like the 1Ds. Doing landscapes, hiking, and doing a lot of other outdoor sports require a smaller and lighter camera, but with a pro build and weather-sealing. If I was sitting in a studio, then the 1Ds would be just fine.

 

[Kabe Luna]

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[cordellwillis]

All of you who are claiming Canon is being greedy consider this; You ALL are being just as greedy as consumers.

Somebodies a pot.
Somebodies a kettle

Call yourselves and Canon what you want. You as a consumer are trying to save money. Canon as a company of people are trying to make money.

Go to whatever gear you like and save your money. Kind of stupid to complain about it all of the time.

 

[Garrett Lucas]

That was very profound...

Let's see...I'm willing to pay 2K more than the price of a 5D MKII (around 4500-5000) for better AF, weather-sealing, pro-build, and longer shutter life for a 1V style body. Canon used to have those features in a camera a decade ago that cost $1800.00 and they made a profit!

Instead, today, Canon says those features are worth $5300.00 more.

Yep, you're right, we're just being greedy consumers.

All of you who are claiming Canon is being greedy consider this; You
ALL are being just as greedy as consumers.

Somebodies a pot.
Somebodies a kettle
Call yourselves and Canon what you want. You as a consumer are trying
to save money. Canon as a company of people are trying to make money.

Go to whatever gear you like and save your money. Kind of stupid to
complain about it all of the time.

 

[Kabe Luna]

N/T

And the 1DsIII hasn't been shipping yet for quite a year, IIRC.

Facts not your strong suit, eh?

How about the fact that you can now get the same 21.1MP chip (in
fact, a claimed superior version of it) in a $2700 camera. Nikon
offers equivalent, if not better, AF performance and
weather-resistance, as well as more features in a $4500 full frame
camera. Sony is offering more pixels and more features in a full
frame camera for $3000. In all of these instances, there is nothing
the 1DsIII offers that can consistently account for the additional
expense.

Except the fact that both Sony and Nikon twenty-something megapixels
cameras are vaporware and 1Ds3 exists and has existed for 18 months
(1D3 is almost excatly the same camera body that was relesed a year
and a half ago) and 5D2 has perhaps 505 of the feature set of the
1Ds3...

I sense sour grapes here but, hey, whateva!

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[Kabe Luna]

I'm not in the game to save money, especially when most of the photographic gear I buy will pay for itself in short order. Rather I'm interested in paying a fair price for the gear that I need, and this includes a fair profit for the maker. Considering Canon's product diversity of Canon, many of the R&D costs of technologies developed for its cameras can be amortized across any number of product lines–indeed, I'll be willing to wager this is a mandate within the company, which is why you may not see some technologies quickly adopted or developed even as competitors adopt them. So, R&D recovery costs aren't likely anywhere near as great as the average person would expect them to be on a per-unit basis.

You may consider, conservatively, $4500 profit on a $7500 camera (in the case of the 1DsIII) fair profit, but I certainly don't. If not bending over and taking it for Canon's benefit makes me a "greedy" consumer, then tell me where to sign up for the "greedy" consumers club.

All of you who are claiming Canon is being greedy consider this; You
ALL are being just as greedy as consumers.

Somebodies a pot.
Somebodies a kettle
Call yourselves and Canon what you want. You as a consumer are trying
to save money. Canon as a company of people are trying to make money.

Go to whatever gear you like and save your money. Kind of stupid to
complain about it all of the time.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[RobertSigmund]

The discussion whether a piece of equipment is worth its price is perfectly legitimate and reasonable and part of any sensible review and to mention that one needs not to buy it contributes nothing whatsoever to this discussion. It is, in this context, sheer nonsense.

And for the purpose of this discussion the question of AF is eminently important and I will continue to follow it eagerly.