(10-08-2020, 09:11 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: (10-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: (10-08-2020, 07:19 PM)mst Wrote: (10-08-2020, 06:14 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: You can un-justify the price when there is no mirror mechanism and no expensive prism, yet the same price as a pro DSLR, though.
Not sure that equation works. An OLED display (plus quite a few optical elements) is hardly cheaper than the prism and a few mechanical parts for the mirror. Plus, taking away the mirror makes traditional phase detect AF impossible and requires either on-sensor solutions or lots of calculation power. Both not cheap... in terms of engineering, production and battery consumption.
Still: obviously both Canon and Nikon see a market niche they want to fill. Especially now that Sony caught some prestige clients in the pro market.
My point was not to prove ML or classical DSLR pro bodies inferior or superior. The point is: this is a really demanding market niche and in order to make any pro in that niche consider switching, they need to come up with some really good ideas to solve the potential downsides of the mirrorless approach. Or offer features, that simply wouldn't be possible with a DSLR, but would create a market advantage (for the users). And to be attractive for those clients, they first of all need pro grade lenses and pro grade bodies... where "pro" is definitely not only defined by the number of shots per second.
In terms of mirrorless, Sony is far ahead in that market for now. But their share of the total market is minimal. It's still dominated by Canon and Nikon.
The DSLR contains the same on-sensor solution and computing power...
Nikon and Canon DSLRs don't feature IBIS. It doesn't come for free...
Canon put IBIS in their R6 and R5, prices are way lower than those DSLRS... Sony puts IBIS in their A7/A9 series, also not that expensive. Nikon also puts IBIS in their Z series, even the bottom one (Z5). So, apparently adding IBIS does not make a big price difference.
So... With the DSLRs, the expensive things get dropped (that big and expensive to manufacture high quality glass prism, the phase detect AF module with its AF sensor and optics, the high speed mirror mechanism).
Nothing else gets added, except the EVF LCD.
My point was (and is): the (rumoured) price, in comparison to the top end DSLRs, appears to be very high since it lacks the need for those expensive items and then just offers what a EOS R5 offers, but with integrated battery grip.
(10-09-2020, 01:34 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: (10-08-2020, 09:11 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: (10-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: (10-08-2020, 07:19 PM)mst Wrote: (10-08-2020, 06:14 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: You can un-justify the price when there is no mirror mechanism and no expensive prism, yet the same price as a pro DSLR, though.
Not sure that equation works. An OLED display (plus quite a few optical elements) is hardly cheaper than the prism and a few mechanical parts for the mirror. Plus, taking away the mirror makes traditional phase detect AF impossible and requires either on-sensor solutions or lots of calculation power. Both not cheap... in terms of engineering, production and battery consumption.
Still: obviously both Canon and Nikon see a market niche they want to fill. Especially now that Sony caught some prestige clients in the pro market.
My point was not to prove ML or classical DSLR pro bodies inferior or superior. The point is: this is a really demanding market niche and in order to make any pro in that niche consider switching, they need to come up with some really good ideas to solve the potential downsides of the mirrorless approach. Or offer features, that simply wouldn't be possible with a DSLR, but would create a market advantage (for the users). And to be attractive for those clients, they first of all need pro grade lenses and pro grade bodies... where "pro" is definitely not only defined by the number of shots per second.
In terms of mirrorless, Sony is far ahead in that market for now. But their share of the total market is minimal. It's still dominated by Canon and Nikon.
The DSLR contains the same on-sensor solution and computing power...
Nikon and Canon DSLRs don't feature IBIS. It doesn't come for free...
Canon put IBIS in their R6 and R5, prices are way lower than those DSLRS... Sony puts IBIS in their A7/A9 series, also not that expensive. Nikon also puts IBIS in their Z series, even the bottom one (Z5). So, apparently adding IBIS does not make a big price difference. IBIS is certainly far from costing nothing. It's just that the cost is offset by other things or that ML camera are taking smaller margins than their DLSR counterparts.
IBIS did not make Sony DSLRs/SLTs a lot more expensive, either...
(10-09-2020, 03:30 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: IBIS did not make Sony DSLRs/SLTs a lot more expensive, either...
Question: what's more expensive to manufacture ?
- A camera where the sensor is fixed
- The exact same camera, except for one single difference: the sensor is mounted on a complex floating system which allows it to be moved and controlled to compensate shake
Now try to give a logical answer...
Funny. Nice straw man argument.
At issue: why is a MILC rumoured to be as expensive as a top DSLR when it lacks expensive stuff like OVF prism, mirror assembly and PD AF module.
"But IBIS costs a little bit". OK, thanks for that.
(10-09-2020, 10:24 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: why is a MILC rumoured to be as expensive as a top DSLR when it lacks expensive stuff like OVF prism, mirror assembly and PD AF module.
FWIW Canon 850D costs more than M50.. DSLRs are more expensive to manufacture than equivalent MILC
10-12-2020, 06:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2020, 06:34 AM by you2.)
I don't know how much IBIS cost but one difference between canon, sony and nikon is canon and sony can use other businesses to help fund their photographic business. While this is more likely to be true with sony than canon; canon might be more concern about lens profit than camera body.
having made the above comments nikon (or nikon bodies) have always been a lot more expensive than canon (at least in USA; yes there are a few exceptions) as well as a lot more anal with warranty coverage (canon for years could care less if body was grey where nikon would make authorized repairs next to impossible much less warranty repair - to be fair some of this might have to do with how nikon handled distribution vs canon - i.e, nikon business model differs from canon).
-
It would be interesting to understand actual break down of profit margin on camera bodies to reduce speculation and provide a more factual understanding of what is happening with regards to prices. Of course what is happening might be different between different vendors. For example Canon might have better scale of sales, sony internally funds photographic or nikon might charge by feature rather than production cost or feature might actually cost more due to how technology transfers in japan. Lots of possibilities.
|
