Is photography gear overpriced ?

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I've deleted my last 3 goes at this post as I made no sense. :thinking:

I tried to use 'guitar' as a hobby to compare but waffled too much.

Cut to the chase.....

The best guitars (pro) cost far less than pro cameras but i can't think why.

Lenses are like pro guitars in that they are quality 'instruments' but Isn't a camera body just an electrical bit of tat - like an ipod ?
 
dinners said:
I've deleted my last 3 goes at this post as I made no sense. :thinking:

I tried to use 'guitar' as a hobby to compare but waffled too much.

Cut to the chase.....

The best guitars (pro) cost far less than pro cameras but i can't think why.

Lenses are like pro guitars in that they are quality 'instruments' but Isn't a camera body just an electrical bit of tat - like an ipod ?
Click to expand...

Ipods don't have huge CMOS chips in them. There's a pretty high failure rate when making them, with all-sorts of tiny problems that can render the chip useless.
 
dinners said:
I've deleted my last 3 goes at this post as I made no sense. :thinking:

I tried to use 'guitar' as a hobby to compare but waffled too much.

Cut to the chase.....

The best guitars (pro) cost far less than pro cameras but i can't think why.

Lenses are like pro guitars in that they are quality 'instruments' but Isn't a camera body just an electrical bit of tat - like an ipod ?
Click to expand...

I would have thought a lot more goes into building a pro camera than a pro guitar...(awaits the flame war from the guitarheads :naughty:)
 
Jayst84 said:
Ipods don't have huge CMOS chips in them. There's a pretty high failure rate when making them, with all-sorts of tiny problems that can render the chip useless.
Click to expand...

Ipods may be a bad example but you get my drift.

Failure rate or not............

They sell enough of the things.

3, 4, 500 or indeed 3000, 4000 is bonkers for a body......
 
Jayst84 said:
R&D and marketing costs are also insanely high in the camera world.

R & D - we have popular lenses selling for a fortune that have been in the mix for 10 years.

I'm not trying to justify the prices, but there is a lot of cost involved. I believe retailers' margins are almost non-existent on bodies. No idea what the manufacturers' margins are like though.
Click to expand...

If it's the retailers margins - so what - if it's the manufacturer - then more shame on us :suspect:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I would have thought a lot more goes into building a pro camera than a pro guitar...(awaits the flame war from the guitarheads :naughty:)
Click to expand...

Yes and no......:bonk:

I could do a whole 'quality' camera v guitar thing but there's no point.

I just feel that if I want to go 'pro' in terms of camera kit I need an extra mortgage but if I want the same standard from another hobby (guitar used as an example) then money isn'tso tight.
 
Hi,
Interesting debate! I used to do hanggliding and paragliding, not a cheap sport per se but I thought I would offer some comparative costs at the 'cheap' end of the flying world.
Learning costs 500-1000, a new HG costs 1800-3000, paragliders about 2000.
Add flying neccesities, altivario, boots, helmet, flyingsuit etc another 500-1000.
Club/national membership say 200, how much spent on fuel legging it from one hill to another i daren't work out! Having said that the majority of pilots buy s/h kit!

So photography in a relative sense is cheaper depending on your lens lust! A bit further up the flying food chain life gets much more expensive, sailplanes are from several grand up to 60k. Freefallers i have heard can spend 200 a day just getting taken up to 10,000 feet....
On the other hand photography is much more expensive than say squash or rugby. But how much does say a good hi-fi system cost? A reasonable car, and so on. I think the truth is that any real quality product costs, I also used to play saxaphone [badly] but a good one will set you back several thousand!

Morning,

Dunc
 
Buyers dictate the market, if buyers are purchasing cameras at the price being sold then the answer is no they are not overpriced.

Same goes for IPODS, they are just MP3 players which you can pick up for a little as a tenner but people are buying them at a rate that outstrips other MP3 players at a fraction of the price.

So regardless of the price, its a buyers market and if buyers are buying...
 
Anyone got an idea of the manufacturing cost of a 7D?
 
dinners said:
I just feel that if I want to go 'pro' in terms of camera kit I need an extra mortgage but if I want the same standard from another hobby (guitar used as an example) then money isn'tso tight.
Click to expand...

You could be right. I paid £1600 for my Gretsch and it took me a long time to convince myself that I should get it.

I don't know what that would get you in terms of a DSLR and lenses (because I don't do digital) but I don't think it would get you much.


Steve.
 
I used to shoot pratical pistol as a hobby, trust me photoraphy is cheap in comparison if you look at the cost of what I used to shoot. when they banned handguns in 1997/98 the compensation pay out I got was just over £8k iirc and I had only been shooting for about 2 years and only handed in 2 pistols, the rest was accessories.
 
The fixed costs involved in the manufacture of cameras, are huge. Look at the photos of that factory in the photo, there's millions possibly of pounds worth of machinery and factory there. Multiply this by how many factories the likes of Nikon have, plus their R & D costs, and you are talking telephone number figures.
I imagine R & D costs have escalated massively since the advent of digital, just look at the rate at which new models are released, all with new technology, new sensors, software, etc. Compare that with the film era, when the lifecycle of products was longer, and the advances in technology were less rapid.

As to retailers margins - well the rate at which smaller camera shops have shut recently would suggest that margins are not great.

I suppose photography costs as much as you want to spend on it. Buy a new camera body every 2 years, and yes it's going to cost you a small fortune for comparitively little improvement to your output. Stick with the film camera you've had for the past 20 years, and it's not going to cost you a great deal.
 
Don't forget that the R&D for electric guitars was pretty much done 50 years ago - there main cost is manufacturing.

These days a US Fender will cost you less the a months average wage, back in the 60s a Strat would have set you back more than a years average wage.

It's also a worth bearing in mind that cameras are updated every 12-18 months, manufacturers are always introducing new stuff and that maintains the price at a high level - the technology never gets old.
 
It appears that there is certainly more popularity and accessibility to the DSLR market than say 6 years ago - the entry level price has dropped (I think - please correct me if I'm wrong :) ). It's largely based on the continual reduction in cost of entry level cameras...

now my understanding is that there is then an increase demand for lenses....
now depending on manufacturing capacity the demand will either increase the cost or remain the same... but then EoS comes into it with increased production...

*high five for my GCSE in business studies*
 
Don't forget a camera and lens system is an optical system of very high quality. There have been huge advances with IS/VR systems and lens coating that eliminates much in the way of spherical and chromatic aberrations. Sensors have developed at a heck of a pace, it was only three years ago I bought a 5D new and that was quite cutting edge at the time.

If you compare cameras with microscopes a decent microscope will set you back about £5K and if you want to get more specialised with reflecting light and fluorescence you should be looking at £12-16K

We do get some decent value for money in comparison with a range to choose from with good choices at both ends of the market.
 
adsayer said:
It appears that there is certainly more popularity and accessibility to the DSLR market than say 6 years ago - the entry level price has dropped (I think - please correct me if I'm wrong
Click to expand...

I think you're right. I briefly tried digital six years ago with a Nikon D100 which cost me £1500. I think something similar today would just be a few hundred pounds.


Steve.
 
If you're buying pro kit, it's likely you will be making money from photography.

If you have a couple of bodies and a couple of L lenses at a cost of £6-7k, you can make that back fairly easily.
 
As guitarist, you find you spend a LOT of dosh on guitars and all the other bits and bobs So for me and it's camera equiv:

£120 on strings per year (say the cost of a decent tripod)
Oils and tools £50 (accesories)
A good amp should set you back £800 for the head (24-70 f2.8 :D)
A decent cab £400 (wide-angle f4)
Your guitar £2000ish (5d mkII & a prime or two)
Quality pedals and leads £500 (a 70-200mm)

It think that balances out, and obiously if your a high frequency gigging guitarist you'd need three guitars or more. Two if it's a side source of income.

And i'd say it's the same with the camera world, i.e two or three bodies.

But the most important fact for me here is that despite the economic climate guitars still cost roughly the same, lens prices have risen INSANLEY high and fast recently. I think thats the only defining difference in cost ATM, but I'm sure when it all evens out again, it'll be quite even.

Oh I apologise for this post as it's the most confusing I may have ever written. :(
 
Something nobody has mentioned is a good guitar will still work perfectly in 50 years time, after thousands of hours playing. Cameras have a finite life span, the shutters/motors will wear out after maybe only 50.000-100.000 cycles, in a pros hands thats not long.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Something nobody has mentioned is a good guitar will still work perfectly in 50 years time, after thousands of hours playing. Cameras have a finite life span, the shutters/motors will wear out after maybe only 50.000-100.000 cycles, in a pros hands thats not long.
Click to expand...

I regularly use fifty year old cameras. But you are generally correct. As a percentage of the total made, not many are still working today.

Willie Nelson's worn out Martin: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6980590-md.jpg


Steve.
 
JEmerson said:
£120 on strings per year
Click to expand...

Before I had the Gretsch, I used to change strings about once a month. Now, I can make a set last almost a year (D'Addario XL115, 11-48 for guitar geeks).

I know that's hard to believe - I find it hard to believe myself.

I often think that I should change them then have a look, see that they are alright and leave it.

That's on about two gigs a week.


Steve.
 
But everything on the Apollo missions was hand crafted. DSLRs are churned out on a production line.


Steve.
 
I'd hazard a guess that accessories have a higher profit margin than cameras!

I honestly don't think that the camera manufacturers are taking us for a ride. I used to work for one and I know what the profit margins on compacts were at the time and they were about a quid a camera! The company had a huge turnover and small profit margins. And yes the R&D budgets can be enormous.

Just witness the latest thread on the new Nikon and Canons. A load of camera enthusiasts complaining that the specs were not good enough for their demands.

I'd hazard a guess that the manufacturers of bags and lighting accessories are almost as profitable.
 
It does cost a lot of money, i could have got a VERY nice run around if i spend my money on a car instead.

But then again, in 12 month's time, my camera would've made me some of that back and depreciate probably around 20% what i paid at most.
 
Well as today Canon announced a drop in sales but a rise in profits then yes photography stuff is over priced
 
Interesting comparison - entry level photography you have your D40, D60 etc plus kit lens (and Canon equivs of course!), entry level guitar you can pick up a Squire Strat plus a small amp for similar money. Equally, you can go pro, spend £2k plus on a hand crafted guitar made of exotic woods plus hand wired amps for equal money and in the camera world you can spend equally crazy amounts of money on a cutting edge D3 and the best Nikon lenses available.

I know if I hadn't bought my guitars, camera equipment and nice car I'd have been able to pay off a large chunk of my mortgage - but I also know which option was more enjoyable!
 
and that's aprtly the point. All work and no play just makes you older and miserable!

I spent a long time going without when I was younger and now I'm in my forties I will still be prudent in what I buy even if I CAN afford to buy some rather expensive kit I still by second hand if the item is as good as new. My 1DsII was second hand and so were the 17-40mm 70-200 f4 70-200f 2.8IS. I saved over £5K on that little lot!

So yes by all means be prudent, enjoy your hobby/profession and as my gran used to say, "There are no pockets in shrouds"
 
Steve Smith said:
Before I had the Gretsch, I used to change strings about once a month. Now, I can make a set last almost a year (D'Addario XL115, 11-48 for guitar geeks).

I know that's hard to believe - I find it hard to believe myself.
Click to expand...

Heres my maths

£6 x 12 = 72 -thats my regualr guitar.

£6 x 6 = 36 - thats my back-up/ guitar in Eb sometimes.

£10 x 2 = 20 - For my acostic guitar.

When you add it up it's acuallty pretty shocking. But I suppose it depends hown 'played in you like/can stand your strings being. Oh and I forgot the cost of valves... £200 for a full retube every so often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top