I just don't get these 2001 prices??

Started Jan 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,147
Re: I just don't get these 2001 prices??

NeilJones wrote:

Why are you pro's still saying its ok for Nikon/Canon to charge these silly prices!!

They are willing to pay that for the best possible camera. Actually, it is cheap compared to Leica gear or something that might cost $30,000 for a camera and a few lenses.

Technology has jumped so much over the years and prices for all these components in these cameras have come way down and yet you are still ok paying what you did 10 years ago??

There is market for it. If they weren't paying off those cameras with high paying photo jobs, you wouldn't see them buying it. A few amateurs will buy them too, those with some extra spending money and who want the best cameras.

Yes, I know the components used are better but it's just simply easier and cheaper to make them now!

Look at the Sonys a77. A 24mp sensor in a really nice camera with many cool features. It's $1400. I know, I know, it does not compete with the D4 but please don't tell me that it costs that much more to make the D4. (a77 also has incredible 60p 1080 hd video too)

I agree the higher specification components are not the majority of the cost. Look at the D1, D2h, D3, D3s, D4 cost, they were $5,500 US, $3,500, $5,000, $5,200 and $6,000 respectively.

The drop between the D1 and D2h is probably due to manufacturing costs, and the cost increase between the D2h and D3 is in part an FX sensor, but probably mostly due to what the market would accept.

Even the full frame Sony a900 with 24mp is less than 3 grand. (with new one on the way for probably not much more)

The A850 is only $2,000 with FX. As you say, I imagine the cost to manufacturer this camera is probably within a few hundred dollars of a D3x that costs 4 times as much.

Silicon wafer pricing is relatively fixed over time, so cost is mostly based on area of the sensor. So it is a relatively fixed cost that doesn't change much with time, so FX sensor will always cost probably 3 to 10x what an APS-C sensor costs regardless of current technology.

My point here is if you have two identical cameras, one FX and one DX, the FX one will probably cost a minimum of $500 more, and maybe closer to $1000 more, just due to the sensor. This is an unavoidable cost, and why you don't see more cheaper full frame cameras.

This also shows that the A77 vs A55 price difference is not due to the sensor. They use the 24 MP sensor as an enticement to buy that model, but the cost to Sony is very little higher for the 24 MP than the 16 MP sensor. By your same logic the Sony A77 would be "overpriced", as it likely doesn't cost twice as much to make as the A55.

It's time for you "working pros" to tell Nikon/Canon to stop with their over inflated camera prices on these so called "pro cameras" as this is 2012 not 2001!

I agree that the component cost doesn't justify the asking price, but I disagree completely that the asking price is too high. People buy them.

Here is a reference for silicon wafer costs. You can see they didn't change much in a period of about 5 years.

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Higuma
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow