Why can't Canon make a decent full-frame body that's quite a bit cheaper than the 5d Mk II?

[tim_klimowicz]

<p>Why can't Canon make a decent full-frame body that's quite a bit cheaper than the 5d Mk II? I'd be thrilled without all the extra crap -- the video, the live view, the trillion MP and drive FPS, etc. I'd just like a decent full-frame workhorse (weather-sealed to at least some degree) camera, ~12MP full-frame, that takes solid pictures.</p>

<p>Why couldn't they just revamp the original 5D (new digic, etc) and sell it for what I assume would be quite a bit cheaper now that the technology is 4 years old (and presumably much cheaper to produce)?</p>

<p>Currently the only choices are the wee-bit-expensive MkII, a used Mk I, or something totally not full-frame. How could this be? Is there really just *no* market for such a camera?</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>Its coming ?</p>

[zml]

<p>What you consider "crap" others consider essential features so a camera must aim at a common denominator of users with a set of features that appeal to the widest possible customer base. Besides, I bet that in addition to the new processor and the caveat you have explicitly declared ("weather-sealed to at least some degree") you may want 100% viewfinder, spot metering, long-lasting battery, great hight ISO performance et cetera... In a word, a $2500 camera without all the "crap..."</p>

[amol]

<p>Canon is a business, they stay <em>alive </em> by charging the most people are willing to pay. So, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. For now, people are willing to pay more for full-frame, and Canon knows this. There is <em>currently </em> little financial reason for Canon to offer this. Maybe in the future.<br>

There are other things, like research & development cost that need to taken into account over the long-term.</p>

<p>I agree, there are things I wish for too. (Actually, Nikon is releasing a DSLR with a swiveling LCD. Hopefully Canon is paying attention). Of course, this brings up another issue. Different people want different things. Canon can't please everyone. You want a stripped down 5D, I want a 50D with swiveling LCD, and Uncle Bob wants something that will read his mind, and pick the correct AF point... etc.</p>

<p>I hope we all get what we want... except Uncle Bob</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I think that they'll eventually migrate the full frame sensors to something that is the price equivalent of the current X0D models, but it will be a while still. Of course, those bodies also have some of the stuff that you don't want...</p>

[phil_armitage1]

<p>The manufacturing cost of sensors is most probably determined primarily by their physical size rather than the number of pixels. Intel, for example, migrate their processors to newer process technology as fast as possible - it's cheaper to put the same number of components onto a smaller piece of silicon. There are surely some incremental savings from smaller pixel count devices - a slower processor would suffice etc - but it may not be as much as you think.</p>

<p>That said, it may well be the case that Canon's manufacturing has improved over the years so that the fraction of the 5D MkII's retail cost that is the sensor is smaller than it was for the original 5D... leaving room for a cheaper model. From the fact that such a thing hasn't appeared one can assume that Canon don't (yet) think it would boost their overall profits.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Why not just buy a used 5D or old stock if you need to save a few benjamins? Or buy a Sony FF. It's a little cheaper. The 12.8MP 5D is freakin amazing even 3.5 years out from its debut. It's a waste of time to ask us why Canon doesn't respond to the gear fantasies of every photogeek. Why not ask Canon? Only they can give you an accurate answer. I suspect if Canon could make a lot of money from a 5D JR, they'd be making it. </p>

<p>I think the 5DII is a great deal at $2600. I'd buy one tomorrow if I didn't already have a 5D.</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>I don't think the extra "crap" as you put it adds much to the component price of the camera. A model without these features wouldn't cost any less to make, and would be much less marketable.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I presume that Canon have done sufficient thinking to conclude that the profit from the extra sales they'd generate from launching a cheaper FF model would not be greater than the profit they'd lose from people downtrading to a cheaper model that otherwise would have bought a 5DII. And they may be right. In many markets, research indicates that companies will earn less <strong><em>profit</em></strong> from reducing prices to sell more, and earn more from holding or even increasing prices and taking a volume hit. </p>

 

[samoksner]

<p>You're describing a 5D. I don't see why it needs a new digic sensor, nothing wrong with the old one. And the weather sealing is not that big a deal. I've had mine in the rain, in the dust and with mud sprayed on. So you can't wash it down under the faucet... big deal. Grab one of those rubber protective things and you're as sealed as teh current 5D MkII (which is not like Nikon's D700 which is actually sealed, I've seen guys with a lot of guts wash it off with a hose and it was fine). And at $1200, what more could you ask. It's not as if the old 5D did not take solid pictures!</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Probably Canon can't do it yet. They don't have economies of scale in full-frame manufacturing like those of APS. So, they have to position full-frame models higher in the market by adding other features so that the package is competitive and profitable. With more production experience and volume, prices will come down. Hang in there.</p>

[lee_smith2]

<p>If you don't want all that extra crap, buy a 5D!</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>I brought up this very same hope yesterday. Just a basic camera built to pro standards and leave all the auto junk off. Hasselblad CM and Nikon F2 would be a model.</p>

[Brad_]

Why should they? 5DII sales are doing fine.

 

Also, the cost of sensor silicon, processing ASICs, mechanicals, etc will be

the same in both cases. Software (actually the de-scoping of what gets put into the basic cam) is the only differentiator.

[jack_nordine]

<p>On a FF camera, I don't consider 21 MP as being "too much", wheras I do consider 15 MP on a crop to be excessive. As Lee mentioned, it does seem like you'd be comfortable with a 5D.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>The 5DII came out of the gate already cheaper than a 5D. Remember the original 5D leveled off at about $3200 for the body only. Only when the 5DII was announced was the 5D reduced to about the same price as a 5DII.</p>

<p>The 5DII is a steal at it's current price if you ask me. It's not going to get much cheaper to downgrade the firmware and drop in an older processor. If you consider all the Canon price increases on everything else, the 5DII is half price from the original at release time.</p>

<p>Besides, if you want a really cheap full frame camera, you can always buy a film body. You can even buy 4 medium format kits for the price of one 5DII. :)</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I'm a Nikon user, but I agree full heartedly with Tim 100% . . .! Yes! for a serious still image shooter, a pro, a serious amateur, the video... is crap. Crap, Period. A serious photographer need a solid camera with-out all this amateur Christmas decoration. Even a 'live view" is useless for people with reading glass, specially in bright daylight situation. Those extra decoration, futures, all business tricks for the averages consumers. </p>

[lucafoto]

<p>Just shoot 35mm film </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>By the way, the argument about sensor costs being fixed as a function of sensor dimensions doesn't hold much water. If that were the case it would not be possible to produce a full frame sensor body for less than $7000-$8000.</p>

<p>It is interesting to speculate on what besides sensor cost could explain the difference between the 5DII and the 1DsM3. Clearly the 1DsM3 is worth more than the 5DII on some level, but on a direct-cost-of-components basis it seems that there is probably a lot of room for price movement at all levels at some point.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If they could think of a way to reduce the cost of building that FF sensor it would cover half the cost or more of the camera. So far no other camera manufacturer has found a better or more efficient way of building thoses sensors once that happens you better beleive that prices will go down . The reason why camera manufacturers came out with cropped sensors in the first place was because that was the only way to keep cost down. Although the build on the 5D is pretty good, Canon cut allot of corners by leaving out some features that are in Pro models. The 5D1 is basically a 20D with a full frame sensor. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> By the way, the argument about sensor costs being fixed as a function of sensor dimensions doesn't hold much

water.

 

Sensor costs, for a given semiconductor process/geometry and yield, ARE pretty much fixed. That's the nature of the

business. It is based on wafer costs. More (yielded) smaller dimension sensors per wafer results

in a lower per-sensor cost.

 

>>> If that were the case it would not be possible to produce a full frame sensor body for less than $7000-$8000.

 

Absolutely not true. In fact, it's very easy to see how FF body pricing at 5DII levels makes sense.

 

 

>>> It is interesting to speculate on what besides sensor cost could explain the difference between the 5DII and the

1DsM3.

 

You are confusing cost (actually COGS - Cost of Goods Sold) with price; the later is based on differing margin targets, features, differentiation, share expectations, the price the market will bear, competition, etc.

[stephen sullivan]

<p>Tim, Canon already has, it's called the Canon EOS 5D MK II.</p>

<p>Approximiltly how much was the original 5D when it was first introduced? I think it was close to $ 4000 USD.</p>

<p>Last year Canon introduces the 5D MK II at approximiltly at $ 2600 USD.</p>

<p>What am I missing? Canon produced a camera that did much more, for much less.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Two comments:<br>

To those of you who keep criticizing Canon for adding the video, you forget that all the hardware essentials for the video are already in place. Adding it was essentially writing the software to let it happen. It's not as if the camera is loaded with power zooms, switchable neutral density filters, and the other hardware elements that distinguish it from a dedicated consumer or professional camcorder. In essence, the addition of video actually represents little of the retail price.<br>

Liveview. Some may not find it essential. For studio work and fine tuning focus for product shots, as an example, it is a godsend. It's also a quick workaround for achieving mirror lockup.<br>

I find it amazing that so many of you whine and moan, and you've never worked in a manufacturing or software development environment. Do you ever take pictures? </p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Two comments:<br>

To those of you who keep criticizing Canon for adding the video, you forget that all the hardware essentials for the video are already in place. Adding it was essentially writing the software to let it happen. It's not as if the camera is loaded with power zooms, switchable neutral density filters, and the other hardware elements that distinguish it from a dedicated consumer or professional camcorder. In essence, the addition of video actually represents little of the retail price.<br>

Liveview. Some may not find it essential. For studio work and fine tuning focus for product shots, as an example, it is a godsend. It's also a quick workaround for achieving mirror lockup.<br>

I find it amazing that so many of you whine and moan, and you've never worked in a manufacturing or software development environment. Do you ever take pictures? </p>

<p> </p>

[bieg]

<p>Some folks are never satisfied. My first DSLR was the original D30 the first really "affordable" DSLR and that was close to $4000 THEN. Canon has done a remarkable job increasing capabilities AND lowering the price of admission. </p>