thats provided the 7D replaces the 5D. if the 5D remains, then 7D will be priced lower.
Canon 7D?
- Thread starter Ola
- Start date
- Status
thats provided the 7D replaces the 5D. if the 5D remains, then 7D will be priced lower.
however, that does seem to be the case with the XXXD and XXD series cameras. the RRP for every new revision is lower than the one it replaces.
If $2k+ is considered "so affordable", no one would be buying camera bodies like the D40 or D40X, and Canon wouldn't be haemorrhaging market share in the past 1 year.
IMHO your theory is sound ONLY if the only camera manufacturer is Canon.
However, they're not, and Canon's marketing strategy of market segmentation isn't the only one around either. Just take a look at how Nikon's doing it. By providing "pro features" on a very much lesser body, newbies are more likely to swing in Nikon's favour when selecting a system. Newbies are the real golden geese. Those "upgraders" are usually tied to the system they started with...
I believe they did something similar when the D200 launched, and 30D was launched a fair bit cheaper than expected, resulting in massive drop in value of 2nd hand 20D.
flipfreak
Senior Member
so far i don't think they will concurrent models with the new one being priced lower. if u look at the 30D and 40D, the 30D is still cheaper by a few hundreds.
Thing is, many of those who bought it aren't the Pros, but those who are getting their year end bonus in Dec
This might be a little OT, but we see the same thing with the 1Ds mk 3. You'll be surprised how many people who bought it are actually full-time professionals because we're all waiting for price to settle and most importantly, to see if there are any issues with the cam before buying. Just last saturday, one of the wedding guests who was the couple's colleague was using a Nikon D3 and 24-70 in full auto mode to do group /casual shots.
so true... is all about I WANT than I need...
yep :bsmilie:
wow if it's true then
It makes more sense now.... The pricing is more logical. 5D was simply too expensive when it was first released. Even now, the price is still on a high side.
That is because of canon singapore. Now the 5D price is so much cheaper in the US especially if you consider the rebates offered. The local price is simply a joke.
unseenshadows
New Member
For me, if I upgrade to FF, I will get a 2nd hand 5D. So I'm hoping this 7D will come out cheap and the price of 2nd hand 5Ds will drop like rocks from the sky. 
But 3k plus for a mid-range FF camera, is too good to be true. Like one CSer posted, USD 3k+ more likely.
But 3k plus for a mid-range FF camera, is too good to be true. Like one CSer posted, USD 3k+ more likely.
In fact, from the view of semiconductor technology, it should be easy to fabricate FF sensor then a 1.3, 1.6 crop sensor, (consider the same MP count).
Semiconductor technology move from Micron to sub-micron, and now it is almost reach its limit now,
To fabricate a FF sensor, It should be much easier to move backward, the only difference probably it need a bit more waffer base material.
"FF" sensors is being overpriced, it should not be very much difference from any other sensor.
This is just my 2 cents
Semiconductor technology move from Micron to sub-micron, and now it is almost reach its limit now,
To fabricate a FF sensor, It should be much easier to move backward, the only difference probably it need a bit more waffer base material.
"FF" sensors is being overpriced, it should not be very much difference from any other sensor.
This is just my 2 cents
I'm not sure about the technology used, but the sure way to bring the costs of FF down is to produce *more* of them. Another rumour going around uses this as grounds to see the 5D being replaced by 2 models: entry level FF (7D) and prosumer level FF (3D). Certainly rumours, but the strength in this argument is that it is also about market demand. Question is if the demand is strong enough to profit from it.
Precisely. When the 40D was released, its body-only package was selling for the same price as a 30D body 8 months after release.
I purchased a 30D body around 8 months after it was released at S$1880, with the usual freebies; get this, the 40D body was selling for that price when it was first released.
FF sensor is larger than 1.3 or 1.6. This means the number of chip that can be produced on the same area of material is less. Also when chip size is big, it's more likely to be kill by particle defect during manufacturing. Maybe that's why it's more exp.
my statement of more affordable was made in relation to the price of existing 400D and 40D ... indeed, if you can pay another $1000 for a full frame camera (read 7D, not 5D), I believe that a lot of potential 40D buyers would not consider 40D at all. D40 and D40X are comparable to Canon likes of 400D only ... If Canon's REALLY releasing 7D at 3k, I believe that Nikon immediately hv a haemorrhage in market share ...
As it is, Canon is the ONLY one doing full frame for a long while (Nikon D3 jus come in, I got no comments since I dun use Nikon and I dun know much abt it). D3 selling abt $7k now is probably comparable to 5D (and the to-be-released 7D). For a long time, my Nikon frens are complaining that Nikon technological advances are too slow and too few. Full frame comes like 4-5 years after Canon even.
"The Nikon D40 was announced just under four months ago, and yet here we are with a new version of that camera. The D40X has the same compact lightweight body and easy to use control layout, in fact the only external physical difference is the badge. Under the bonnet Nikon has swapped out the D40's six megapixel CCD for a ten megapixel unit, this also provides a lower base sensitivity of ISO 100 and must utilize dual readout because continuous shooting frame rate has gone up from 2.5 fps to 3.0 fps. Based on the specs and features this camera is clearly aiming to knock the EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi) off its pedestal." - Source DPReview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
wat "pro features" on a lesser body do you mean? I would say this is a case of damage control, knowing that 400D is one-up, the D40X aims to stem the tide (which D40 failed to after even launching 3 months after 400D) and hopefully swing some newbies to its side. For one, as far as I could remember, even 300D has ISO 100. At most, D40X aims to be on par w 400D (not forgetting that 400D was released in Aug 06, D40 in Nov 06, D40X in Mar 07).
Guess it would be more helpful for all of us if generalisations be keep to a minimum and providing some facts to support ... most of us hv been with Canon for ages and dun know much abt Nikon ...
Yes, FF sensor is 35% larger than 1.3, so the number of chip can be produced on the same area of material is 35% less, so it should cost 35% more that 1.3, that what I said it uses more waffer base material.
It is definitely easier, higher yield (less failure rate) to fabricate a bigger size than squeeze into a small size chip.
I would say the FF sensor should not cost more than 50% of a 1.3 sensor.
You're seriously out of your depth on this subject matter ...
huh? why leh?
- Status
Similar threads
