Pro cameras...price drops in the future?

[Canuck Photog]

With Sony's release of the XDCAM EX cameras and the JVC gy-hd250 series, one wonders if the overall prices of pro cameras will start to drop. Granted these types of cameras have their issues, but if Sony can cram 1/2 chips into a camera body for that price, does this mean we'll start to see new products that offer the same features in more pricey units (that we all so love) for a cheaper price? Perhaps the advent of the PD150 wasn't such a bad thing afterall, in that it has started both an economic and technological change (trust me, I'm not a fan of the PD150!!).

Obviously there will always be high-end HD cameras, etc., but perhaps for us news people we'll soon see some new cameras that come out of Japan that will equal those $30k+ units in both durability and image quality.


CP

[Land Rover]

That would be nice but I don't think it will happen. New technology will always be developed to go into larger cameras and that R&D will keep the price up. Also, EX is targeted to a different group of consumers in the business than the full-size XDCAM is.

[AlexLucas]

We can talk all day about the technology, the importance of this format over another, blah, blah blah.

What anyone chooses a camera over is image. That is the definite truth to it. So let's cut it down to the real truth. Overall color saturation, light control, depth, contrast, and all the other factors are pretty much set by two major factors in a camera, and the rest is just electronic guts that change from year to year.

Those two factors are:
1. Lens size- involving the compound capability of a lens, throat size, and overall ASA rating. Basically how much light gets in. That ties in with-
2. Target size- meaning the size and construction of your capture technology. We usually refer to them as 1/'3, 1/2, and 2/3 or full size 35 capture formats. Basically a painter's canvas size.

We can play with technology all day. Flip formats. Boost the skin detail settings. Crush the blacks. Mess with any number of details.

At the end of the day, the reason why those cameras will always be expensive is because lenses and chips are exponentially expensive to produce according to size. There really isn't a tech jump to be made in premium optics, optics are, short of coatings, a market that cannot be really expanded beyond features, because it's all been figured out since the European Renaissance. Also, there will always be a market for getting that premium in visual representation, and that isn't easy.

It's raw physics. It always has been, always will be. Getting that tricky raw physics to represent a quality image with glass, well, costs a lot more money to get in the door than the tech format of the week. That will never go away. Go price lenses on B&H if you have any doubt about this.

Big cameras, are, in my opinion, going to be priced above what the market wants perpetually.

[sixtycyclehum]

http://www.xdcamex.co.uk/layoutgfx/xdcamex.png

What's the point of having an ENG lens if you can't shoulder it? I mean it's fine if you're on sticks...but if you want to go handheld, you have to buy some sort of brace. But even with a brace it still looks like it's going to be too front-heavy. And that'd be a lot of pressure on the hand control.

Plus with the eye piece on the back it would be awkward to hold the camera and use the lens at the same time...you'd have to hold the camera on the bottom with your right hand and focus, zoom, and iris with your left hand; leaving the hand control unused.

[Canuck Photog]

It's raw physics. It always has been, always will be. Getting that tricky raw physics to represent a quality image with glass, well, costs a lot more money to get in the door than the tech format of the week. That will never go away. Go price lenses on B&H if you have any doubt about this.

Big cameras, are, in my opinion, going to be priced above what the market wants perpetually.

You have some valid points-- obviously there is also the supply and demand factor. How many Sony F355s or even DSR470s does Sony make a year? Maybe only a few thousand (speculation, obvisously). So the prices on the larger cameras will always be that of small car...it's actually pretty funny because people always ask me how much my camera costs...I always reply "what kind of car do you drive?" They always seem so shocked, but it's just supply and demand. And I don't think Sony makes much of a profit of it's broadcast sector anyway...why do you think they're always releasing a new handycam every month...

Still, I can't help but think advances in chip technology and "guts" may drive the prices of large cams down...not discounting their advanced technology of course...

CP

[newsshooter]

I know for a fact they really don't make much money on the little cameras either. It's the accessories you buy, cards, tapes, batteries, lights, disks, bags, flash cards, etc.... You know the Monster Cable I-pod radio plug Best Buy sells for $100.00 I can get one from a wholeseller for $50.00 and he also makes money.

[Canonman]

At the end of the day, the reason why those cameras will always be expensive is because lenses and chips are exponentially expensive to produce according to size. There really isn't a tech jump to be made in premium optics, optics are, short of coatings, a market that cannot be really expanded beyond features, because it's all been figured out since the European Renaissance.

No, there have been many advances in lens manufacturing over the years. Not just fluorite coatings, but edge dispersion, aspherical lens shape, etc, have contributed to better imaging. Not to mention the tooling gets more modernized and can grind/polish the surfaces to much tighter tolerances than they could during the Renaissance. Good glass is expensive to make.

As to imager size, it's easier to make larger semiconductor devices than smaller ones. Smaller and smaller features mean more optical reduction is needed when projecting the circuit pattern through a reticle to the wafer surface. This leads to extremely shallow DOF. That means less tolerance for variation in height of the existing layer, lest parts of it be out of focus. That means chemical/mechanical polishing must be used to get the surface extremely flat. And that's just a small part of the process.

This is why every time you see a higher capacity memory card in the same format, it costs more. The manufacturer is recouping their costs for a low yield process. Gradually, the process gets tweaked and improved until yields come up, at which time the price will go down.

What I'm saying is that the larger imager should not be a contributing factor to higher camera prices. It's everything else surrounding that larger chip and the lower demand in the market place that keeps the costs higher.

cm