The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Not necessarily.
If Canon sells "at a lower price" at loss, they will actually lose money.
In the particular discussed case, Canon would sell exactly the same number of units, of almost the same hardware (except for the second SD card slot, IBIS, shutter, and a couple of controls), but for $1000 less.
Upvote
0
Care to elaborate? What news about price elasticity am I supposed to find these days?
Upvote
0
That's not the approach that Canon is taking.
"As for operating profit, an increase in the proportion of sales attributable to the highly profitable EOS R system of mirrorless cameras and lenses, increased profitability [operating profit percentage] to 18.0%."
- Canon financial document
Upvote
0
Canon still sells The Rebel T7 and T100 for less than $400 USD including a kit lens.
Rumors of an R50 and R100 point to a similar approach in the future.
Sure the R6, R5, and R3 sold well, but Canon never stopped selling the RP and then added the R7 and R10.
Upvote
0
Selling "at a higher price at a loss" implies that the profit above RE (Recurring expenses) at a lower sales volume is insufficient to recover the NRE (Non-recurring expenses) required to make the first one, things like the R&D, cost of setting up the production area and rollout expenses.
Selling at a lower price at a loss implies the same thing except that the profit per each unit is lower while the sales volume is higher. That's where price elasticity comes in. (See my previous post in this thread. I'm not going to explain it.) The price must not be less than the RE.
Upvote
0
You're right, but there can be complications. Some manufacturers will sell articles at (or even below) RE (or whatever measure they use), on the basis that they are going to make their profit on continuing related sales.
An example is some motor vehicles, which are relatively cheap to buy, but come with contracts for over-priced servicing using overpriced 'original' spare parts. Lower price printers are another example - where the printer itself is ridiculously underpriced but will really only work properly (without eg constant nagging reminders) with overpriced 'original' toners / inks. I think they call this 'cross elasticity', where the price of one article (eg the lower than expected price of the printer) has an effect (+ve) on sales of a related article (overpriced toner). The related product (ink) then is considered 'price inelastic' because an increase in price won't have much effect on the demand from tied-in buyers of the original good (printer)!
To what extent this applies to camera makers I'm not sure. You could say that Canon (as an example) is keeping a pretty firm hold on the production and sale of RF mount lenses, ie in not allowing open access to connecting software, so they could theoretically sell R bodies relatively cheaply on the basis they expect to make up the foregone profit on relatively overpriced lenses. Speculation, obviously ...
Upvote
0
Canon have themselves stated in interviews that they will be concentrating in future on high-end, high-profit products, but as you imply, it ain't as simple as that. It's absolutely vital that they continue to attract *new* customers, i.e. novices, and that means they have no choice but to also produce budget models *and* budget lenses. I suspect that most, if not all of the budget models (below R10) will be designed and targeted for the vlogging sector. So a whole lot more inane "content" is assured.
Upvote
0
Well, one point might be that it is rumoured to be an M6 II replacement, with a noticeably different 'form factor' to the R7 and R10. Those Canon users who have been used to the smaller M mount-sized bodies will probably be very pleased if that turns out to be true. Those waiting for an R1 are, mostly, having a great time using the very capable R3.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I realize that I am not a typical Canon customer, but I really had hoped that with the RP Canon was going to concentrate on low-cost full frame bodies. In the film days it was so simple: every SLR (except for a few specialized models) followed the 35mm (full frame) format. No confusion over lenses, crop factors, etc. etc.
I actually thought that when Canon created the RP they were opening the door to once again standardize the format. APS-C made sense when sensor production was prohibitively expensive, but is that really the case today? Perhaps it is just impossible to get a full frame body down to the sales price of an APS-C body, but I can't help thinking they could get close.
I'm not even convinced that size is an issue. Anyone who owned a full frame SLR knows how much smaller they were than today's supersized bodies. And, those were bodies that had to leave room for film cassettes and take up reels, along with having a reflex mirror. Given how much computing power is packed into your typical I-phone there should be plenty of room for electronics in a small full frame body.
With the new RF-S lenses Canon is once again creating a two-tiered system that will confuse new buyers and leave them with lenses that, if they ever move to a full frame body, will produce images of significantly reduced resolution.
I know Canon has decided to go a different direction and I know they understand the market better than I do, but I still wish they would have taken the opportunity with the R system to keep it simple.
I actually thought that when Canon created the RP they were opening the door to once again standardize the format. APS-C made sense when sensor production was prohibitively expensive, but is that really the case today? Perhaps it is just impossible to get a full frame body down to the sales price of an APS-C body, but I can't help thinking they could get close.
I'm not even convinced that size is an issue. Anyone who owned a full frame SLR knows how much smaller they were than today's supersized bodies. And, those were bodies that had to leave room for film cassettes and take up reels, along with having a reflex mirror. Given how much computing power is packed into your typical I-phone there should be plenty of room for electronics in a small full frame body.
With the new RF-S lenses Canon is once again creating a two-tiered system that will confuse new buyers and leave them with lenses that, if they ever move to a full frame body, will produce images of significantly reduced resolution.
I know Canon has decided to go a different direction and I know they understand the market better than I do, but I still wish they would have taken the opportunity with the R system to keep it simple.
Upvote
0
I'm not sure we know in a final sense where Canon are heading with these bodies. The RP (and the R) are looking like one-off transitional bodies to start the process of moving users away from FF DSLRs. It looks like we'll end up with R6/R5/R3/R1 for FF (ranked from lower $s) and R7/R8/R10 in APS-C (ranked from highest $s), but who knows whether there are plans for 1 or more other bodies (FF or APS-C) aimed at the lower $ range, as they phase out the XXD, XXXD and M series over time?
I'd personally love to see a more direct RP replacement (and I think there were rumours a while back of a lower $ FF), but the recent multiple APS-C bodies may signal it won't happen.
I take your point on the RF-S lenses as well, although some of the FF lenses look as if they were co-designed to fit well on the APS-C bodies (including with 1.6 magnification).
Upvote
0
I only currently own FF gear, but I believe there is a strong case for producing APS-C bodies. They are cheaper than equivalent FF bodies, and have a major advantage in "reach", which is invaluable to sports and wildlife photographers. If you don't need the extra reach, you still have the advantage of being able to use lighter, cheaper lenses to get the same angle of view (compared to FF).
As camera and sensor technology progresses, I actually think there will ultimately be a move *away* from FF and back to smaller formats. Olympus/OM Systems have shown that even M43 can produce professional results, and can more easily incorporate techniques such as hand-held pixel-shift with moving subjects, that rely on fast bursts and in-camera merging, in conjunction with "AI".
Upvote
0
There is clearly a push by Canon, Sony, Nikon to get people into Full Frame. And internet and YouTube influencers have certainly pushed the FF agenda for years now, in some cases clearly biased and clearly doing there best to kill certain crop sensor lines and even Micro Four Thirds in general. And yet, crop sensor cameras have always outsold FF by a wide margin. That margin seems to be narrowing - and my guess the main reason is because of that internet influence, as the younger generation especially seems prone to getting virtually all their information online. But as a photographer for over 40 years and almost 20 years now with digital equipment, I find that I use the crop bodies far more than FF and find crop to be far more versatile, in many cases due to the very things you mention. Personally, I think that without all the FF hype on the internet and YouTube, crop cameras would be gaining in popularity, especially as their major shorcoming - the additional noise - becomes almost a total non-factor with software such as Topaz and DXO PureRaw2. Sure, portrait and studio shooters and those needing thin DOF will always be better off using FF, but crop has more advantages, in my opinion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
