GH2 GH3: Panny: YES uncompressed HDMI, firmware focus peaking....

Thomas Smet said:
How in the world can anybody think $1,299.00 is too much for a camera of this caliber? .
Click to expand...

This is the question that bugs me too ..... Everybody may hope for Porsche characteristics at a Volkswagen price but there are rather logical reasons why this can not be so ...... And sure this or that feature may be missing or be different than what a certain shooter wants ..... But over all this camera and it's specs look quite fantastic ..... and I am looking forward to get mine hopefully before Christmas.....
 
Zephyrnoid said:
$1,299 is a lot of money at retail for a device that costs $100 per unit to build and ship at wholesale.
The manufacturers' greed factor is astounding!
Click to expand...

Gary Huff said:
You are apparently ignorant of the costs that are derived from simply designing, building the camera in the first place. It's not just the cost of the parts that are assembled together.
Click to expand...

Gary's right. There's so much that goes into pricing.

Take Apple's cheapest iPhone 4s cost to build for 16GB version on iSuppli and you'll get a sense of factors that go into making the phone.
isuppli.jpg

Retail without contract on AT&T was $449. That's a markup of $261. Of course, you have to factor in all of the R&D costs, returns, repairs, waste.... So the actual profit per phone will be a bit less.

Consider that the GH3 has a hell of a lot more going on inside than the iPhone. It's a much more labor intensive build, many more parts, much more expensive parts, and they'll sell far fewer GH3s than Apple sells iPhones so the economy of scale isn't as great. And don't forget, the phone service providers reportedly don't get a cut on the hardware - it all goes to Apple. Every retailer who sell the GH3 is getting a sizable cut of that $1299.

No. I'd say Panasonic's per unit profitis going to be fairly low, maybe 20-25%. If they're lucky.
 
On the Blackmagic forum, someone actually started a thread requesting that Blackmagic remove Davinci Resolve from the Camera Package, and lower the price to 1800~2000 so that it "competes with GH3 pricing."

It was pretty disgusting.
 
Yes, it's silly to complain about the price of the GH3, quite apart from the free market issue. There is also inflation - as currency depreciates, the cost of raw materials rises, and there are knock on effects of a product that's made in China/Japan, when the dollar is sinking vs the yen, and labor costs in China are slowly escalating. Something has to give. Now, no doubt Moore's Law still has an effect, but it's an effect that is best observed at greater volume - when you start going into slightly more niche products price elasticity declines. Computers or phones may keep getting cheaper, but I'm not so sure about pro/semi-pro gear that sells in much smaller quantities.

In any case, the GH3 is $1300 for body only - but all products fall into brackets. I mean if you as an independent filmmaker are going to be stopped by a $400 difference between the GH2 and GH3, then I think you are looking at the wrong end of things. There is so much more cost associated with having a workable camera - starting with lenses and any accessory gear such as external monitors, sound solution etc. None of those other costs are affected by the body - even if you have the very cheap GH2, you still need to spend just as much money on all that extra gear to make the GH2 operational for your purposes - it can be thousands. In that light, what difference does a mere $400 make in the big scheme of things? Not to mention, that for some, the GH3 may save on some gear - perhaps if the GH3 improves in many categories, some will no longer feel a need for an external monitor or can use cheaper/slower lenses, or onboard sound or whatever... not saying that it will necessarily be so, but for sure you don't need to put more $ into accessories for the GH3 compared to the GH2.

I don't feel like price is what should stop anyone from buying the GH3. If the GH3 represents no advance to you over the GH2, by all means, don't buy the GH3 and stick with the GH2. Whatever advancement the GH3 has over the GH2 - if any - from your point of view, is it worth $400? I will wait until it's tested out there in the wild by indies, but to me, if any of the features mentioned so far on the GH3 work as advertised, it'll be more than worth the extra $400. Of course, if you conclude that the GH3 has worse image or whatever compared to the GH2, then the $400 figure is immaterial, after all, if they made the "worse" GH3 cheaper by $500 than the GH2, you wouldn't grab it anyway, right?

At that level, $400 is really a non-issue. Let's wait for user feedback, but what cam out there is better at $1300, today (for video folks)?
 
Kholi said:
On the Blackmagic forum, someone actually started a thread requesting that Blackmagic remove Davinci Resolve from the Camera Package, and lower the price to 1800~2000 so that it "competes with GH3 pricing."

It was pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

Curious about the "disgusting".... Were people yelling at each other, name calling, what? I saw the BMC as NAB and was not as impressed as others (the form factor and interface are the things I didn't care for).
 
Gary Huff said:
You are apparently ignorant of the costs that are derived from simply designing, building the camera in the first place. It's not just the cost of the parts that are assembled together.
Click to expand...
I take little offense at the moniker of 'ignorant' but still, as a patent holder and searcher and filer of patents for others, I'm fully aware that the hidden costs of a retail item include a plethora of expenses that are passed through. In truth, much of the cost differential between the GH3 and the GH2 is probably licensing/sourcing of the sensor from a third party. I probably exaggerate when I said the cost was $100 at wholesale ( tens of thousands of units +) as it's probably less than that still. To paraphrase my mentor, Alan Cooper... Why are people paying so much for 'betas' ?
 
Kholi said:
On the Blackmagic forum, someone actually started a thread requesting that Blackmagic remove Davinci Resolve from the Camera Package, and lower the price to 1800~2000 so that it "competes with GH3 pricing."

It was pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...
It's NOT disgusting! I called for the same split. Software costs pennies to duplicate and if the bundle can be split, it should be. Customers of BMC have been taken for a ride, paying WAY too much for pennies of software.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
I probably exaggerate when I said the cost was $100 at wholesale ( tens of thousands of units +) as it's probably less than that still. To paraphrase my mentor, Alan Cooper... Why are people paying so much for 'betas' ?
Click to expand...

So you think $100 was an exaggeration as in "$100 was too high"?

Now it's clear that you're just pulling everyone's leg.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
It's NOT disgusting! I called for the same split. Software costs pennies to duplicate and if the bundle can be split, it should be. Customers of BMC have been taken for a ride, paying WAY too much for pennies of software.
Click to expand...

Next time you order a pizza, be sure to tell them you're only willing to pay a few cents over what the ingredients cost. See how quickly it gets delivered.

Ignorant isn't the word I would have chosen to describe your level of knowledge about costs and pricing.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
It's NOT disgusting! I called for the same split. Software costs pennies to duplicate and if the bundle can be split, it should be. Customers of BMC have been taken for a ride, paying WAY too much for pennies of software.
Click to expand...

BMCC=$2995
Resolve(with BMCC proof of purchase) = $5
 
RatLabProductions said:
BMCC=$2995
Resolve(with BMCC proof of purchase) = $5
Click to expand...

Yes.... Software does indeed cost pennies to replicate...

But what about the costs involved in developing the software. I understand bm bought Resolve... They probably paid millions for it.... At five bucks per copy, how many do you think they'd have ever to sell just to break even.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
It's NOT disgusting! I called for the same split. Software costs pennies to duplicate and if the bundle can be split, it should be. Customers of BMC have been taken for a ride, paying WAY too much for pennies of software.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling? Because you're either trolling or still just really ignorant.
 
Gary Huff said:
Are you trolling? Because you're either trolling or still just really ignorant.
Click to expand...

Gary. You don't know anything about my professional background. I am a part time video user (in my day job). I'm ignorant of what? Business? I know what a ridiculous game the software business is because I was steeped in it for years. Long after the core R&D has been recouped, software companies have for 20 years been gouging customers. But sure, the reasonable cost of any commodity is set by the market. If the market can't bear it, it wont pay. I'm not ignorant of the fact that retail 25 years ago, in the analog days was around 400% - 500% of wholesale, which BTW is not the same as cost.
Today, retail runs at between 700% and 1000% of wholesale. In software, that margin is way bigger. Remember that HW is made from atoms, but software is made from bits. Bits cost next to nothing to duplicate. So when when BMC 'bundles' what they allege to be $1,250 worth of software into the camera, they are really bundling what costs them ZERO per unit.
Now when it comes to HW, this stuff has been in robotic mass production for decades, with fewer and fewer hands in Quangdong touching anything. I mean I could go on but I know that you are not as ignorant as you suggest that I am so you get it right?
The BMC ploy of tricking customers into thinking that 'including' Resolve adds anything over a few pennies of value is hilarious. Then again, it's the same trick Microsoft built its empire on.
If you're going to call me out as a troll because it's convenient for you, go ahead. I'll check your LinkedIn profile later ;)
 
@Zephyrnoid I understand your position but there are many ways to look at the issue. If the software costs x amount when bought separately and many people have considered it valuable enough to pay that (and some still do) then it has the value that people are paying for it. That is not just "what the market will bear" because there are (in various capacities) competing options at differing price-points. People feel the software is worth that amount of money.

I have also consulted for various audio technology companies (both hardware and software) and I have very little experience with any companies that "gouge" their customers in that arena. It is not just a question of what it "cost" the company in the past, it is a question of to what extent the products enable a company to maintain quality and survive in the marketplace. That means (among other things) trying to maintain a margin for unexpected contingencies (a sharp drop in sales due to shift in the economy or marketplace for example) and being able to maintain salaries that are attractive enough to the core staff to keep them on board.

Am I saying that as a customer I do not appreciate lower prices? No. But I am saying that the value of a product is not linked simply to the cost of manufacturing and R & D but to a much larger and more complex equation than can be easily summed up in a reasonable length post. When BMD says they are adding X amount of value to the package, it is because a lot of people have been paying X amount for that part of the package. This is not deceptive or an untrue statement of the value, no matter how far it diverges from a particular analysis of the cost to the company of adding it.

Here are a few of the things you do not address in your earlier response (though given your background I would assume that you already thought of them):
- The cost to the company of losing a potential Resolve sale.
- The cost to the company of potentially devaluing the perceived value of one of their marquee brands through bundling.
- The cost to the company if Resolve goes from a profitable product in its own right to purely an "added value" part of their bundle (while needing to keep the staff on to maintain that part of the package to keep that edge).

All of these are tangible things that both the business and marketing sides of the company should be taking into account. There is no reason for them not to claim they are adding X amount of dollars worth of value when even that value is a drastic reduction vs. the previous price of the product (and is an accurate reflection of what they currently sell it for).

On the other hand, when some companies say they are including Y amount of dollars worth of free software with a piece of hardware (where Y is the price of all the software bought one by one separately but they are already offered at a massive discount in all sorts of bundles) then I shake my head a bit. In those cases, it's not lying but it's not the whole truth either. This seems like a far easier to swallow case.
 
Last edited:
This is ridiculous. It costs what it costs. If you don't like it go buy something else. It can't really get any simpler then that.
 
This is becoming a pro seminar in digital economics and the presumed (non-)morality of mayor corporations. Great. Maybe we can re-rail this thread by derailing it a bit further:

In other discussions people already complained about the form of the GH3 - too big, too heavy, too too - so it may not fit their hands. None of the discussants had ever held it in their hands though. And I waited anxiously what by chance either members of the Watusi or the Pygmy tribes would say about "the size issue" as their hand-sizes really, really are a bit different - both from each others and from mine.

And discussing the way big companies may calculate their prices in a very volatile and cut-throat market is, in my view, even more in-effective. Those companies are, for sure, no humanitarian organisations. Their prices are proposals. And estimations what a customer may want to pay. If you do not like neither their proposal or their estimation, don't buy their product and they may re-estimate and change the proposal.

Everything else reminds me of methods of divination by reading the innards of a dead fish or dog - unless someone has real access to a) the product calculation of Panasonic, b) their market strategy and c) their (real) current financial structure.

Having said this - one question: Has anybody any hints Panasonic may be a bit more open to allow adjustments of the camera specs and opening the camera for a "Vitaly-sation" of sorts either by the company itself or the Russian magician and his disciples......?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top