Where is the market for a mid-$2K Canon D-SLR?

[thomas_mok]

I am kind of angry at Canon for having such a big gap between the

$1,500 10D (and its little brother -- the D-Rebel) and the $4,500 1D-

II. There is practically no step up if someone wants something a

little better than the 10D, but don't need the high frame rate of

the 1D-II. I think Canon should upgrade the 10D, and differentiate

it more from the D-Rebel (for example, having an 8 mega-pixel

sensor). Otherwise, no matter how many D-Rebels that it sells, the

only market that they are capturing is from people would have bought

the 10D anyway. That's shooting themselves in the foot.

[socke]

Call it EOS 3d put between 100d and 1d as the EOS 3 is between 1v and EOS 33.

 

My wishlist would be more accurate AF, spotmeter, 1.3 crop.

 

I can live with 4 fps, don't need weathersealing, the EOS 3 wunderplastic body is fine with me and a 9 frame buffer is enough for me if I can get a faster CF interface :-)

 

I'd pay 3.000 Euro for that.

 

Volker

[mike dixon]

The 10D sells for about 60% more than the D-Rebel, and it's

MUCH more solidly built. I don't see that the two cameras are

both targeted at the same market. Are you angry because the

10D lacks some features that you need (and are willing to pay a

little more for) or because it costs three times as much to have a

higher "camera status" than those pedestrian 10D/Rebel users?

[John Crowe]

I can only assume that Canon knows the price of DSLR's is going to drop tremendously in 3-4 years. They know pros can justify the $4500+++ for the top models. They know that the mass consumer market is under $1000 but they know they can hit the upper levels of this market up for $1500 until the technology becomes more affordable. They know all of these current cameras will be ancient history in a relatively short period of time and that prices are going to come down so why invest more money into a mid-level product that will not expand their market share by a significant amount. As much as I hate that they have developed primarily 2 sensor sizes, I understand their reasoning (creating entry level products to boost interest and therefore demand). Providing a third size would be silly. I can also only assume that they are planning on eventually settling on one size of image, so that they do not have to produce a whole new line of lenses that properly address lens coverage and properly reflect the lower cost of making lenses for smaller than full frame DSLR formats. Hang onto your hats, a lot is going to happen in a relatively short period of time.

[jay_.]

I don't think we need another DSLR to fill the price gap between the 10D and the 1D-MKII. What we need is for the price of the 1D-MK-II to fall to where it belongs: $2500. And to be sure, it will. When the 1D came out it was something like $5400. I got mine--brand-new--for $2700 just before the Mk-II was announced. I expect to get a Mk-II for about the same or less, just before the MK-III. In the world of digital cameras, patience is an economic virtue.

[jimstrutz]

Yeah, and it doesn't even take THAT much patience. Things are changing fast.

[._._z]

Exactly. Invest in lenses, speculate on bodies.

[jon_austin]

My only correction to John Crowe's post would be that Canon has fielded three dSLR sensor sizes (1x, 1.3x and 1.6x), not two.

 

The sensor in dSLRs is where all the money is; primarily, the cost to manufacture, due to low production yields.

 

An 8MP sensor that's the same 1.6x size as the 10D's would necessitate smaller pixels, which would increase the noise and arguably negate the value of the higher resolution (low noise is one of Canon's sensors' strengths). Make that 8MP sensor (in your 10D II or 3D or whatever) any larger, and you might as well use the 1.3x unit already developed for the 1D II, and now you're talking a significant jump in price. Maybe without the Digic II, E-TTL II and larger buffer you could sell it for $3,000 - $3,500, but that will still miss your price target, and would probably bleed sales away from the 1D II, which Canon won't want to do for awhile, since it's a new product and they're still recovering the R&D $$ for its development.

 

As others have implied, product life cycles in digital technology are SHORT. The 10D is only slightly more than a year old, and we're all screaming bloody murder for a replacement already! In less than a year (September, February at the latest), you'll probably have your answer. Whether or not you like that answer will be a matter of personal preferences, economics, needs, tastes, etc.

[PuppyDigs]

Heck, to most middle class families spending $500 represents an over the top big bucks camera. $1000 is the stratosphere. A $2500 camera would orbit the Earth only be obtainable by an extremely small market consisting of well-heeled photo geeks 'n aging yuppies. Few shooters could afford or justify such a purchase.

[jon_austin]

Yup, it's an expensive hobby, but it's fun being a photo geek gearhead...

[thomas_mok]

> Are you angry because the 10D lacks some features that you need (and are willing to pay a little more for) or because it costs three times as much to have a higher "camera status" than those pedestrian 10D/Rebel users?

 

Yes and yes!!!

 

I wouldn't mind paying $2k for the 10D plus the 8mp sensor of the 1D-II. At least, there is enough differentiation between that and a D-Rebel. I totally disagree that the 10D and the D-Rebel meet the needs of two different audience, at least not the way those two cameras are today. Today, it would be silly to buy a 10D, given that the D-Rebel can produce images just as good and for $500 less. The 10D users are supposed to be more sofisticated, and they deserve a camera that is much better than the D-Rebel -- not just a little bit better, but appreciatively better. I think the 10D users had to settle, because there is nothing available within the proximity of the price range. That's the reason of my gripe.

[jim_larson1]

I agree fully with Jay. The 1D-II is HUGELY overpriced at $4500. They probably have GOOD profit margins even at $2500.

 

I disagree that a 8MP 1.6 crop sensor would produce a lower quality image than a 10D. This statement presumes no ADVANCE in sensor technology, which there is no reason to believe.

 

Frankly, there is NO technical reason for the 60% price difference between the 300D and 10D, other than a simple attempt to maintain profits. The real money is in the sensor, and the sensors are identical.

 

I have no problem with this, since the market will eventually drive profit margins to the floor within five years. Canon needs to make money while they can.

 

I will only gripe if the 10D-II is priced higher than the current model. Thank goodness for the Nikon D70! My bet the 10D-II will match the D70 price, with 8mp.

[mike dixon]

<i>Today, it would be silly to buy a 10D, given that the D-Rebel

can produce images just as good and for $500 less</i><P>

It's not silly if your demands on the camera are more rigorous

than a lightly-constructed, plastic camera can tolerate. There are

many <b>users</b> for whom a metal chassis and more

durable construction are far more important than an additional

two megapixels.

[troll_underbridge]

a Multi spot meter would be nice like the 1 series and EOS 3.

[whayne_padden]

It will take 3 years before we see a 1D Mk II class camera selling at $2500 and even then I'm not sure. It's not just the digital side of it that has kept it's price high; you are paying for a tank that's offers a pro peace of mind and rock solid reliabilty in the field. That will always cost a premium.

 

I think there is more than enough scope in the interim for a EOS 3D class camera selling at $2000-2500USD with many of the 1D Mk IIs features but in a lighter smaller body and slower speed - say 4.5fps.

[mark u]

The price premium for the ergonomics, feature and build differences between the 10D and 300D has always looked silly alongside the pricing for their film cousins. It looks even sillier now that the latest Russian hack has narrowed the difference in capabilities to being almost minor. Nikon's D70 has emphasized the point, and if Minolta put a decent sensor in their forthcoming DSLR with its anti-shake feature and their reputation for building well featured highly useable bodies, the competitive screw will be turned again. The only justification I can think of for a $2,500 price tag on a Canon would be a larger sensor and consequent useable viewfinder. 8(x3) MP full frame with Canon's rumoured Foveon like technology is probably still several years away though.

[beauh44]

I suspect the "10D MkII" - if and when it becomes available - will address this. I wouldn't be terribly surprised at the 8mp chip in the 10D body, with no spotmeter and a slightly slower frame rate than the 1D MkII, for around the same money a 10D can be had for now. I honestly don't miss the spotmeter; in most cases, my histogram tells me if I haven't metered properly. Still, when you can get a spotmeter in a $79 Olympus Stylus Epic, but not a $1500 10D, well....

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> The 1D-II is HUGELY overpriced at $4500. They probably have GOOD

profit margins even at $2500. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

What's your background to speculate on component/r&d costs and profits?

[chris_carroll]

Canon R U Listening?

 

There is NOT a market for a $2500 souped-up amateur camera.

Just a few guys, some of whom may already own Hermes

edition Leicas.

 

Keep doing what you've been doing. Upgraded 10D, spotmeter,

faster frame rate, etc. $1000. Then $800. And so on.

 

Thanks.

[keith_van_hulle1]

It's amazing how many people here (and not just this thread) know what's better for Canon (or Nikon) than the people the company already employs. Shareholders should probably sue Canon for fiduciary malfesance since they haven't hired some of y'all who know what Canon should be doing rather than what they are doing.

[matthewkane]

-There is practically no step up if someone wants something a little better than the 10D, but don't need the high frame rate of the 1D-II. I think Canon should upgrade the 10D, and differentiate it more from the D-Rebel (for example, having an 8 mega-pixel sensor.

I agree mike dixon!The durability of the canon 10-d is superior to the d-rebel, which is also more important to me than 2 more megapixels. You can make a 13x19 image from a 10-d that looks great if you shoot at iso 100. Why do you need more than that from a 35mm camera? The difference between an 8mp image and a 6mp image is not even hardly noticeable to the naked eye. This has been proven and shown in photo magazines numerous times. Shoot MF film, with bigger negs if you need more than that screw digital. And the 10-d fps is more than sufficient unless your shooting sports as a working pro or photo finishes at horse races.

The guy I am assisting for made plenty of money with the same 10-d he sold to me professionally in the past shooting portraits and for publications, but has now switched to the mark II because he has started shooting rhythmic gymnastics and has made enough money to justifiably buy one. The 10-d is a great camera especially with canon EF IS lenses.

[byron_w]

What more do you need in a 10D?

 

Sounds to me like you want to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

 

BTW, Matthew, at 13x19, 6Mp gives 150dpi, while 8Mp gives 250dpi. You can see that difference.

[mike dixon]

Six megapixels is 2,000 by 3,000; eight megapixels is about

2,300 by 3,500. How does increasing the linear pixel count by

15% increase the linear dpi in a print by 67%?

[jim_larson1]

OK -> you caught me speculating. I don't *know* what this camera's cost stack is. What I do *know* is that the initial canon press releases and write ups emphasized the *value* of the camera and how the 1D-II was really worth as much or *more* than what they are asking.

 

ie, they priced this camera at what they thought the market would bear. My read is that they priced it correctly, given the clamoring of the pros for this body. Just like the 1D, I expect the 1D-II price to drop substantially over the life of this model.

 

As a way of comparison, think about the dRebel and 10D as compared to the Rebel, Elan 7 and EOS 3. Most of the price difference between the dSLRs is pretty obviously marketing. Look how the dRebel and 10D are both coming down in price together, just a short time after the Nikon D70 became available.

 

I don't have a problem with this. This is the way our economy works. Early adopters ALWAYS pay more. This is exactly what happened with Computers. My first PC cost $5000. My most recent PC cost $800.

 

I say to Nikon: Bring it on! Competition is good!

[troll_underbridge]

Before too much more bitching about the cost of the 1D MarkII one should consider the price of the 1DS. After pricing the 1DS the 1DMkII seems pretty cheap.