On 3/13/2012 1:41 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> I'm wondering what the point of doing FF is other than it helps your
> clients keep their legacy glass in action. It appears that Olympus can
> do high-quality capture on 1/4 the real estate. If Olympus seemed boxed
> in by the 4/3 decision, it seems now that the worm is turning and C and
> N are boxed by having to support FF.
Man there's a lot of speculation about which cameras and makers are
"successful" here and around the web. And virtually
all is based on what some individuals find personally interesting or not. None
seems to be related in any way to what
keeps manufacturers in business.
Nope, we don't know sales volumes, let alone profit margins. I've already
ranted more than once about the economics of
manufacturing and the outsize effects on profits of relatively small volume
differences on the margin. I wouldn't be the
least surprised if Canon ran off a big bunch of 5DIIs before closing, retooling
the assembly line and will be making
more per unit at $2,200 than they made on the original production at the
introductory price - and likely more per unit
that the first 5DIIIs. The effect of marginal cost changes when original
design, tooling and start-up costs are paid off
can be HUGE.
I think you can bet that at least Canon is making decent, possible excellent,
money on their FF line. I would also
expect Nikon is doing so.
It's also possible small makers are making money on their niche cameras. It all
depends on the business model,
development and tooling costs, etc. A camera that would be profitable, but not
worth the trouble, for a large maker may
be just what another needs.
You can certainly bet your own $ that C & N have had mirrorless cameras in
prototypes for years, probably at least one
with FF included. If they haven't moved into the market, it's not because of
lack of vision, it's because of lack of
belief that it's ready, big enough, whatever factors, to be worthwhile entering.
> FF will appear to have been a bridge until the smaller sensor bodies could
> catch up, and maybe now they have.
Having picked on your innocent post to uncork something that's been simmering
through several recent threads, I'll take
this opportunity to agree with you, at least in part, and for myself.
FF is here for a long pull. But I'm guessing it will become an increasingly
smaller part of the market. The advantages
for small budget film making are great because of the shallow DOF
characteristics. For those just wanting to take
excellent stills, even for quite large prints, and more casual video, smaller
sensors make great sense. For certain
specialties, like wall size landscape prints, it will continue to be useful.
Although if I were making any money at
that, I'd go MF. Everything just gets so much less fiddly.
Personally, I haven't had what it takes to send the 5D on to another user, but
have been thinking about it. Practically,
the 60D does everything the 5D did with just the subtlest bit less IQ at low
ISOs at 100%. Smaller, lighter, more tele
reach, the same 16-17 mm eq. WA, articulated LCD, live view, excellent HD
video, and so on make it just a more usable
camera.
If I were still committed to OM glass for everyday use, the 5D would make more
sense. I may in fact keep it for use with
the macro system and lenses. But for the majority of my use, it is indeed a
bridge that has helped me over to the other
side. :-)
APS C Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|