Canon prosumer bodies vs Pro series bodies

[evphotography]

<p>Back in the film camera day the difference in cost between say a Canon prosumer body like EOS 3 and Pro body like the 1V cost you about an extra $1000 or less for the pro body. Which got you much better build quality, better weather sealing, higher shutter life, 100% viewfinder and few more features etc. So why in digital era is the price difference so much. Now to get those extra features and build quality it is going to cost you about $4000 or more. I don't get it, anyone's thoughts on this. I know there is inflation in last 10-12 years but at four times the cost. Canon isn't only one, look at Nikon also with D3x. For little better build quality, twice as many pixels with excellent IQ going to cost you about $5500 more.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>I suppose it could be due to the costs involved, I don't know. But the EOS 3 is an odd example, I think. For instance, when the pro camera was the 1N, the semi-pro was the 5, which was a lot less than half the price of the 1N.<br>

Indeed, with the 3, Canon stepped up the semi-pro category quite a lot, compared to what the 5 was. And it was more difficult to justify the 1V, when the 3 was already so good.<br>

Truth be told, the current price of the 1DS MkIII (6500$) is just over a bit double the price of the semi-pro, the 5D ;kII (2700$). So, the extra build quality and features will not cost you 4000$ more, at least with Canon.<br>

What I would like to see is a FF sensor with less pixels (12 or 14) in a body like the 1D MkIII, at 4000$ or so. I would pay that price to have the 5D MkI sensor in a series 1 body.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Paulo B, I'm right there with you wishing Canon would introduce a FF 1D with about 10-12M. I'd still likely use my Ds3 for landscapes, commercial shooting; but a FF 1D series at lower Megapixels would be ideal (for me) for weddings.</p>

[jakobl]

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<p>the 1D mk3 currently costs $3,724.95 at b&h, the 5D mk2 $2,699.95 that is a difference of $1025.<br>

Of course the 1Ds mkX are much pricier but thats due to the big sensor and maybe other stuff.<br>

The analoge cameras had no sensors but film, so it was possible to keep the difference smaller.<br>

But the 1D is a pro series model... so the price difference stayed more or less the same.</p>

<p>Jakob<br /> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>In case you have not noticed the advent of digital capture has been a bonanza for camera makers - particularly the market leaders like Nikon and Canon - they have got away with aggressive pricing because they know their market - after all, don't YOU want all these things...A LOT?</p>

<p>As a balance on the companies' side, digital is rapidly "made obsolete", so they have to get their income in fast and early.</p>

<p>Mind you, in my opinion the "happy days" for Canon and Nikon that have characterized this decade are coming to a close as increasing camera specifications further is, I suspect, being seen as unnecessary by even the most ardent camera geek.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>Paulo -- For the record, the Nikon D3x does not have a prosumer counterpart at this time. The comparison would be between the pro D3 and the prosumer D700.</p>

<p>Jakob -- the 1Ds III has the same size sensor as the 5D II. And the 5d II has a larger sensor than the 1D III.</p>

<p>As to the OP question/comment -- marketing.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I prefer to think of the glass as half full ;-)</p>

<p>The Canon xxD bodies are better built than any Canon non-pro 35mm bodies were. I have an A2E and while it's a fine camera, it is surprising to me just how much body flex and creaking there is compared to any of the xxD digital models, which have zero body flex. Same for other 35mm bodies like the Rebel or Elan which feel like toys compared to the magnesium shells of the prosumer digitals. Canon has been incrementally improving the sealing in the xxD's, and the 5D mkII is said to have EOS 3 level sealing and weather resistance, while the 50D is said to be able to take light rain for short periods. Shutter life on the prosumer bodies is now in the six figure range, previously the domain of pro body shutters.</p>

<p>The price gap between the prosumer and pro bodies may be larger today, but the prosumer bodies are also simply built better than they used to be. I can't help but wonder if some people overestimate what they need in terms of build and go for a 1D series when they would be fine with a xxD or 5D.</p>

<p>Having said that, with Canon inching up the build quality on the prosumer side, I don't know how much longer they can maintain the price gap with the pro side.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>There is no justification for the price difference now, if you bought a 1D MkIII and a 5D MkII (it has the same sensor as a 1Ds MkIII but tweaked, not just the same size, it is the same sensor) ripped the sensor out of the 5D MkII and put it into the 1D MkIII to give you a 1Ds MkIII you would still have a few hundred dollars change over buying a 1Ds MkIII alone. That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, even according to Canon the 5D MkII (with its tweaked sensor) gives better IQ than the $3,700 more expensive 1Ds MkIII! That is a laughable situation, could you imagine that having happened in the film days?</p>

<p>Also, you can still buy a new 1V and PB-E2 for around $1,900, get that and a 5D MkII for $2,700 and you end up with $4,500 ish including two sets of profits, that puts a more realistic value for a 1Ds MkIV at $4,000. Bet it doesn't come close though.</p>

[jim r]

<p>I agree with Robin, the expression "because they can" comes to mind.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Paulo, the way I see it, the 5D MkII is to the 1Ds MkIII what the 3 is to the 1V: a "poor man's" body that is almost as good as the "rich man's" body. The only disanalogy is the autofocusing system: the 5D II's AF system is vastly inferior to the 1Ds III's, while the 3's is virtually the same as the 1V's.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Mark, I agree with what you say. In the film days, the AF systems were very similar between pro and semi-pro cameras. For example, look at the 1N vs. 5, and 1V vs. 3.<br>

It is a bit of a shame that the 5D does not have the same AF system as the 1D series, but then there would be one less reason to buy the 1 series camera...</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>The extra money is a money grab. I use a 1Ds MkII at work for macro photos, and the thing is less well built than the Contax SLRs I use for fun. The 1Ds MkII is good for a company where the money difference is a round off error in the project budget, but I would never buy a 1D-whatever for perosnal use, even if I had $10K that I didn't know what to do with.</p>