Current rip off prices of PRO DSLR's!!!

I'd reckon about 60% of what we pay is to recoup R&D costs - a DSLR is obsolete the moment you buy it.
R&D on a film cameras progresses at a snail's pace compared to Digital and probably is mostly accounted for by design tweaks, whereas with digital there's lot of highly-paid geeks to support who do all the complex number-crunching...

If you paid less, we'd all still be using 1st-gen DSLRs with 3Mp sensors and magenta skin-tones...lol
 
agree with a lot of points on this but the whole recouping costs because of the lifespan of an item is nonsense to me, the manufacturers create the lifespan themselves replacing cameras with updates that generally aren't necessary.

it's more hype rather than demand imho
 
alexkidd said:
agree with a lot of points on this but the whole recouping costs because of the lifespan of an item is nonsense to me, the manufacturers create the lifespan themselves replacing cameras with updates that generally aren't necessary.

it's more hype rather than demand imho
Click to expand...

Unneccesary? How so? How is striving for a perfect image unneccesary? please elaborate...
 
Arkady said:
R&D on a film cameras progresses at a snail's pace compared to Digital and probably is mostly accounted for by design tweaks
Click to expand...

Other than metering and auto-focus, most of the technological advances in film cameras are in the film itself which has had 100+ years of research and development.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Other than metering and auto-focus, most of the technological advances in film cameras are in the film itself which has had 100+ years of research and development.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Exactly - none of which is financed by camera manufacturers...and so has no bearing on a camera's price...
 
Arkady said:
Exactly - none of which is financed by camera manufacturers...and so has no bearing on a camera's price...
Click to expand...

But it didn't stop camera manufacturers coming out with new models with marginally better specifications coupled with clever advertising to make you realise you needed to upgrade!

No change really except perhaps for the time scale. e.g. the original Nikon F was introduced in 1959. The F6 was introduced in 2004 so that's five updates in 45 years or an average of nine years between models. It's not even three years now between new models.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
But it didn't stop camera manufacturers coming out with new models with marginally better specifications coupled with clever advertising to make you realise you needed to upgrade!

No change really.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right... Nikon introduced a new Pro-Film Camera about every ten years - can't really compare that to the current pace of advancement, can you?

The change from Nikon F to F2? Lighter, better shutter, TTL metering.

From F2 to F3? Lighter body, faster shutter speeds, titanium shutter, faster motor-drive, more advanced metering, auto exposure modes.

F3 to F4? better shutter (again) more advanced metering, introduction of 1st-gen AF. Better ergonomics.

F4 to F5? Stronger, lighter body, better AF, better metering, better shutter, broader range of shutter speeds, integrated Motor-drive.

F5 to F6? Stronger, lighter body, better ergonomics, better metering etc etc etc...

That's 6 models in 40 years, compared to DSLR Pro bodies going from D1 to D3x - that's 6 models including 'X' and 'H' variants in eight years...
 
HoppyUK said:
I bought a Minolta SRT101 50 1.7 in 1970 for £174. Basic manual SLR. That is over £4k in today's money.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Using this inflation calculator it's nearer to @£2100.

However I agree in that I do think modern cameras are pretty cheap to buy. But their life expediency is appallingly low - making them VERY expensive to own. I can't imagine many current model digital-tinsel SLR cameras will be operating in 39 years time - but would expect that a Minolta SRT101 of that age to still be a viable piece of kit.
 
Arkady said:
The change from Nikon F to F2? Lighter, better shutter, TTL metering.
Click to expand...

And there was a demand for the original F which kept it in production at the same time as the F2 for the first few years of F2 manufacture.


Steve.
 
I think there is a certain "rip off" element, as with an 18 month upgrade cycle, what is the latest (and most expensive!) soon becomes almost worthless value-wise.

Case in point - I bought a Nikon D100 here the other day for £55. £55!! This was a body that was still selling for £1300 in 2004. And it still takes great pictures!

The D1X was a £2k camera in 2002, and you are lucky to get £200 for them now.
The D2X was over £3k and again, you'd be lucky to get £700 for one now. Again, still takes great pics.

The D3X is perhaps the ultimate "rip off" example right now.

The way to beat this is simply not "upgrade" for the sake of it, and don't be afraid to buy bodies that are a generation or two "out of date" - in reality, few people can tell the difference between a 2001 model and 2009 model printed out at A4.

I think the D700 is pretty good value though.
 
puddleduck said:
Case in point - I bought a Nikon D100 here the other day for £55. £55!! This was a body that was still selling for £1300 in 2004.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I bought one in 2003 for £1500 then realised I didn't like digital photography. :crying:

Just think what I could have spent that money on.


Steve.
 
puddleduck said:
... in reality, few people can tell the difference between a 2001 model and 2009 model printed out at A4..
Click to expand...

But the ones who can are the ones paying for the images...

Skin-tones from my D1x look pretty poor compared to the D3x that I use now, or the D2x I used three months ago...not, I grant you from my Army work, but on my personal images - a big difference...

The differences between D3 and D3x are crucial - one is for sports, news and PR, the other is primarily for studio (but can also be used for sports, news and PR).
Never before has a DSLR had that level of flexibility...that's why it's £5k...
 
Chaz Photos said:
It was Canon that pushed the prices down with the 300D the first sub £1000 Dslr.
So let thank Canon for that ;)
Click to expand...

Really?? I thought the first sub 1000 DSLR was Nikon D70.

Edit: I was wrong - 300D was introduced a few months earlier...
 
dalex_257 said:
Really?? I thought the first sub 1000 DSLR was Nikon D70 - there was no Canon 300D then only 20D as lowest cost model
Click to expand...

Think you find it was the 300D and the 10D which is all most the same insides
see below from DPReview
On 20th August 2003 Canon surprised many people (not least us) when it announced its $899 / €1,099 EOS 300D (Digital Rebel). This digital SLR based on the EOS 10D's superb six megapixel CMOS sensor and image processor in an inexpensive consumer body similar to the film EOS-300. This camera is designed to take the prosumer end of the digital camera market by storm, everyone is fully aware of the image quality of the EOS 10D (considered by many as the benchmark six megapixel digital SLR), and so a consumer priced digital SLR based on the same sensor is irrefutably attractive to anyone who would have previously considered an 'all in one' prosumer digital cameras.
The D70, announced on 28th January 2004 is Nikon's answer to the new sub-$1,000 digital SLR market, its clear competition being the Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) announced last August.
 
Chaz Photos said:
I am sorry but you are wrong on this for Special optical glass it made up of
41.2% SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide), 34.1% PbO (Lead oxide), 12.4% BaO (Barium oxide), 6.3% ZnO(Zinc oxide), 3.0% K2O(Potassium oxide), 2.5% CaO(Calcium oxide ), 0.35% Sb2O3(Antimony trioxide), 0.2% As2O3(Arsenic trioxide)
As you see its very complex
Click to expand...

The glass composition is different for every manufacturer and varies even from lens to lens. But I think you are too serious - desantnik post in my view was intended to be sarcastic...
 
Jamieconverge said:
pro film slrs were just frames for the film, take out the dslrs sensors processors and computer wizardry and you've essentially got a film slr (not exactly, but im sure you get what i mean) all that exta stuff adds a lot to the price
Click to expand...

No - I don't know what you mean. Take out the sensor, surrounding hardware supporting it and firmware controlling it and you end up with empty shell, mirror, prism and shutter. The film SLRs at least those last few generations before DSLRs (like Nikon F4, F5, F80 etc) by the way all had a firmware as well - just not so complicated. That "extra stuff" you referring to is necessary and without it the DSLR would simply not work. And the complexity of developing it accommodating for the new hardware with every new camera costs a lot (in terms of R&D, engineering and software development and testing put into it). That is the reason it costs more.
 
TommyGun said:
How can these manufacturer's justify such silly prices and why are you silly photographers willing to pay these stupid prices ????
Click to expand...

Because we can recoup the cost of a D3 in 2 days?

So, if it's ok with you I'll spend my money on what's good for my business.
 
Because I need something that will work, that will last three years of hard use 30-35,000 shutter actuations a year. That will meter correctly, will autofocus when I blooming well want it and not when it feels up to it, will work in atrocious light and will stand up to use in the rain. And not complain about any of it.

The same reason I drive a VW, it's well built, reliable and just damn well works!

Oh and the picture quality and size of the image are a bit tasty too :)
 
I dont think now is a good time to winge about the prices of pro DSLR's as the exchange rate has driven them up anyway.I remember when the EOS3 and the EOS1 come out they were a lump of money at the time then come the
dcs1 that cost about £22000
 
How about the new digital back for the hasselblad. 39Mp and £10K :)
Most MF digital is in the region of £16K

For sheer mp per pound have a look at the Seitz Panoramic camera. £33,000.

At that end of the spectrum a D700 or a 5DII at £2000 is absolute peanuts for some working pros.
 
Let me put this into perspective, when I started in photo retail in 1976 I netted £15. Per week and the Manager £40.
The cost of an Olympus OM1 c/w 50mm F1.8 was £172.40 and a Nikon f2 Photomic C/W 50mm F2 lens £299.
D+P 5 day turnaround from Kodak 36 exposure £5.99.
 
The whole thing confuses me - at a time when we are supposed to be in a recession and people have less disposable income, the manufacturers have upped their prices by huge percentages and continue to do so. What cost £1100 in january is now £1650. You could argue that it's down to the dropping value of the Pound and many other things but to me, this continual increase in the price of our kit is down to one single thing, the greed of the manufacturers.
 
Voyager;1788371]No it isn't. Using this inflation calculator it's nearer to @£2100.
Click to expand...

Yes it is!

£2100 is just a straight inflation figure. To get a true idea of relative value you need to multiply that figure by earning power, which has pretty much doubled since 1970. Time is money and all that.

Basically, for the amount of time the average Joe would have had to work to earn £174 in 1970, today they would get £4,100 IIRC correctly. Can't remember the calculator I used to get that number, but your figure of £2100 before being multiplied by earning power sounds about right.
 
It costs what it costs...if you don't like it, don't buy it...
If you need it (or think you need it) you'll always find the money...

A Pro-spec DSLR now costs about 2 months' wages, assuming you forget to eat or pay the rent - when I was 18, my F3 also cost me about 2 months' wages - and I didn't pay the rent or eat!
I also had to buy film and the chemistry to process it...Hunger really does concentrate the mind when it comes to printing as well - you become an expert at producing a finished image with a tiny test-strip and 2 sheets of paper...lol

Amazing how long the body can survive on one plate of beans-on-cheese-on-toast a day and PG Tips...
 
Big Dog said:
You could argue that it's down to the dropping value of the Pound and many other things but to me, this continual increase in the price of our kit is down to one single thing, the greed of the manufacturers.
Click to expand...
You don't have to buy into the market. You could keep your old camera longer. Look for good second-hand deals. If you (the public) don't buy the 'expensive' kit in large enough numbers the price will either fall or the manufacturer and/or importers will fail.

Since the latter seems very unlikely and the exchange rate of the ¥ v. $ v. £ has been all over the place - you are most likely to be wrong and it is economic blip rather than excessive profiteering by the suppliers.
 
HoppyUK said:
Can't remember the calculator I used to get that number,
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter - you can measure it an any number of ways. If you measured it as a share of GDP it would be getting on for £5000 - and just as irrelevant.

In the last 40 years production techniques have changed and manufacturing costs fallen and I'd guess (but not bothered to check) that if you measured the cost of cameras against (say) the cost of motorcars, that they both have 'fallen' in a measure against average earnings. But that while they are both more sophisticated and measurably 'better' pieces of kit they have become more of a consumed consumer item and are considered worthless far sooner and disposed of in favour of newer versions. Their life-cycle is far shorter and the 'cost' to the user (as well as income to the manufacturer) is roughly the same over the a given time period.
 
Arkady said:
Amazing how long the body can survive on one plate of beans-on-cheese-on-toast a day and PG Tips...
Click to expand...

Luxury. For me its beans or cheese (on toast).

Tesco value noodles for 9p a packet makes saving up for gear easier too!

I think the comparative costs of lenses over the years may be a better indicator than the cost of camera bodies.


Steve.
 
I think like most electrical stuff, it is more affordable these days. I remember a decent personal cassette player costing £60+ in the 80s, now you can get a nano ipod for just over £100 yet wages have increased more and so its more affordable. Think this is true for TVs, cars and many other things.
 
Steve Smith said:
Luxury. For me its beans or cheese (on toast).

Tesco value noodles for 9p a packet makes saving up for gear easier too!

I think the comparative costs of lenses over the years may be a better indicator than the cost of camera bodies.


Steve.
Click to expand...

i know this all too well. however recently ive stepped up from the 9p noodles to the 19p 'discount brands' ones! what a treat.

electrical equipment is cheaper these days for what you get, but surely thats just down to technological advancements and more efficient production methods? im sure similar or even greater profits are being made by the manufactuers.
 
The amount of uninformed tripe I've read in this thread has really topped some kind of record.

I'm sorry, but I get very irritated with people who don't stop to consider the incredible complexity of the tools they use, or the manufacturing phenomenon that preceds its very being. People who expect professional tools at cheap prices should bid on Ebay for cardboard boxes they hope won't contain bricks.

The amount of research, development, technical engineering, manufacturing expense, material cost, planning and production involved in producing a tool like the D3 is absolutely mindboggling. Producing flaw-free sensors is a costly and time consuming process and no amount of "They should be able to do it by now" windbagging will change the laws of physics or probability. Factor in further the issue that the pro cameras are not volume products, but are precision engineered, highly QC'd, made-in-expensive-Japan items and therefore incur higher-still production and assembly costs...

They cost a hell of a lot of money to make and that reflects in the retail pricing. Sure Nikon/Canon make a profit, but if they didn't they'd be unable to release the next big thing. As someone who is amidst a manufacturing project with China right now I can tell you that even the production costs of a relatively trivial product are crazy in small 30-100,000 volumes, and that's with only 3 professional electronic engineers on the project. Imagine how many wages must be paid at Nikon and Canon.

Are some cameras overpriced? Yes. Is this because the manufacturer is being "greedy"? Probably not. It's more likely down to them wanting to bring out a product that's horrendously expensive to produce, and having to pick a market price point that will balance the production cost off against sales expectations.

No-one complains that Bentley's are overpriced because they know they are a hugely labour intensive, high end peice of engineering that sell few units a year. It still uses ancient technology that hasn't changed in years too (The Wheel). A professional camera is little different, aside from that it sits in a price bracket that's too far away to be reasonable, but close enough to frustrate, unlike a Bentley which is so far out of most people's reach to not attract any sort of contemplative attention.
 
Denyerec said:
The amount of uninformed tripe I've read in this thread has really topped some kind of record...
Click to expand...

True! The OP's basic premise is just daft TBH.

On the other hand, and turning to the more important questions raised about cheese vs beans on toast, I would like to suggest that cheese on toast, as a basic invention, has yet to be improved by technology (or beanz).

You can talk about Welsh Rarebit, Worcester sauce, white/brown/granary bread, even a dash of Reggae Reggae, but the funadamental concept remains perfect. Strong cheddar for preference.
 
Denyerec said:
No-one complains that Bentley's are overpriced because they know they are a hugely labour intensive, high end peice of engineering that sell few units a year. It still uses ancient technology that hasn't changed in years too (The Wheel).
Click to expand...
I dunno. Compare a 4 door Bentley Continental Flying Spur - new (in '05) £116,000, now @£40,000 - against a VW Phaeton (same age, same W12 engine) new - £75,000. Now @£18,000.

The Bentley looks to be overpriced compared to the 4 door LWB Phaeton. And, as I've shown, has dropped markedly in value in a short time. Ye venerable Bentleys of old may have cost more (as measured against average earnings) but would have expected to have lasted longer and hold it's residual value longer.
 
Agreed - strong cheddar is a must, as is the use of Heinz beans and wholegrain bread - did you know for example that the amino acids contained in the beans (or any pulses) are only released into the body if also consumed with wholegrains - the amino acids of which are only released if consumed along with pulses?

It is a scientific fact that beans-on-cheese-on-toast is a perfectly-balanced meal, containing everything a hungry student needs to survive, apart from alcohol...
 
TheBionicDan said:
Quite often the alcohol was enough :)
Click to expand...

Agreed and often helped with persuading female students into conducting extra-curricular activities of a horizontal nature...though sometimes the offer of food and the use of a washing-machine/shower/stay as long as you like in a heated apartment was enough...lol
 
Arkady said:
Agreed - strong cheddar is a must, as is the use of Heinz beans and wholegrain bread - did you know for example that the amino acids contained in the beans (or any pulses) are only released into the body if also consumed with wholegrains - the amino acids of which are only released if consumed along with pulses?

It is a scientific fact that beans-on-cheese-on-toast is a perfectly-balanced meal, containing everything a hungry student needs to survive, apart from alcohol...
Click to expand...

Don't try and throw this thread off topic with seductive talk about cheese and beans. And alcohol.

And loose women :D

Edit: on second thoughts, what more does a man need? Looking at the evidence, and in the great scheme of things, I reckon I could just about squeak by without a DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top