Why are mirrorless systems so expensive?

rfe777 · Feb 28, 2015

After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

EthanP99 · Feb 28, 2015

rfe777 said:
After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Try to find a camera that does 10+ fps under $1000 in a slr...

Kangaroo Court · Feb 28, 2015

EthanP99 said:
EthanP99 said:

After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Click to expand...

Try to find a camera that does 10+ fps under $1000 in a slr...

You think that's the reason? 4k video processing is making fast burst rates much easier to obtain, yet models with 4k are still at very different prices. Burst isn't the reason for high cost, the reason is a shorter newer R&D cycle, plus they don't sell as much volume. It's also not the same for each ML MFG, Sony for example tends to charge more for lenses and less for bodies, where MFT is perhaps in the middle, and Samsung has higher bodies and lower cost lenses. Fuji overcharges both.

So we have low volume one way or another, and we have newer system tech which affects R&D support. Companies always charge more when something is new, and ML hasn't had time to grow into itself like DSLRs have. Then we have miniaturization. There is a reason a laptop of the same performance costs more than a desktop. It costs money to make things smaller.

They may charge you more for a higher burst rate but that's not the real culprit, as the A6k proves. Your answer was simply a cheap jab at DSLRs to make ML look like a better value.

dka91 · Feb 28, 2015

rfe777 said:
After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Tbh the technology is not what makes the cameras expensive, if I have this correct, the mirror is a moving part that costs more to manufacture, so I think the camera companies actually save money with the mirrorless cameras. Also there doesn't need to be any spent to maintain the image quality, many mirrorless cameras use the same sensors as in DSLRs and they offer near identical performances give or take the "processing" used by each company.

In fact I don't really think mirror-less cameras are more expensive that their DSLR counterparts, especially some of the low end models which go for peanuts. Even considering bodies like the a7 and a7r they go for really cheap in the UK.

To me the problem with mirrorless is mainly autofocus which lags behind their DSLR counterparts, and for some mounts the lens selection is limited.

dinoSnake · Feb 28, 2015

Kangaroo Court said:
EthanP99 said:

Kangaroo Court said:

After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Click to expand...

Try to find a camera that does 10+ fps under $1000 in a slr...

Click to expand...

You think that's the reason? 4k video processing is making fast burst rates much easier to obtain, yet models with 4k are still at very different prices. Burst isn't the reason for high cost, the reason is a shorter newer R&D cycle, plus they don't sell as much volume. It's also not the same for each ML MFG, Sony for example tends to charge more for lenses and less for bodies, where MFT is perhaps in the middle, and Samsung has higher bodies and lower cost lenses. Fuji overcharges both.

So we have low volume one way or another, and we have newer system tech which affects R&D support. Companies always charge more when something is new, and ML hasn't had time to grow into itself like DSLRs have. Then we have miniaturization. There is a reason a laptop of the same performance costs more than a desktop. It costs money to make things smaller.

They may charge you more for a higher burst rate but that's not the real culprit, as the A6k proves. Your answer was simply a cheap jab at DSLRs to make ML look like a better value.

Indeed. The answer is simple: mirrorless has lower sales numbers which must amortize a higher R&D cost. Mirrorless designs are younger than their DSLR brothers and have not had the time to amortize the costs of their components, like mirror boxes, shutters, drive systems, etc., and their frequent model updates only makes this worse. A Canon Rebel update often keeps many of the same components and sells tens of thousands; a Sony Alpha E-mount update often brings many new components and sells far less.

The old law still applies: If you want the newest tech, you've got to pay for it.

Beachcomber Joe · Feb 28, 2015

neil holmes · Feb 28, 2015

rfe777 said:
After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Depends on what you want though.

The cheapest ILC's available to me are mirrorless, the most expensive are DSLRs.

In between you have a huge mix and cost depends on spec.

For lenses, I use a mix of many different systems and the most expensive (by far) I use are from Canon's line up.

DaveOl · Feb 28, 2015

It takes quite a bit of money to get that mirror out of there!

mgd43 · Feb 28, 2015

It's not necessarily that their R&D costs are higher, it's that their costs including R&D and certain fixed costs are spread out over fewer units sold. That causes a higher unit cost which leads to a higher unit price.

justmeMN · Feb 28, 2015

DSLRs have economies of scale on their side. Canon estimates that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Canon is also moving towards all-robotic production.

nzmacro · Feb 28, 2015

rfe777 said:
After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

Its all relative to what you want, need and can afford. I could buy a cheap DSLR if needed, but choose not to. My NEX-7 is over 3 years old and running on 30 year old lenses. I wouldn't want to mount the lenses on a DSLR, so its just what you decide what you want and need that counts.

All the best and just buy what you want like anyone else. Its all about choices and its not a big deal.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

AdSR · Feb 28, 2015

dka91 said:
In fact I don't really think mirror-less cameras are more expensive that their DSLR counterparts, especially some of the low end models which go for peanuts. Even considering bodies like the a7 and a7r they go for really cheap in the UK.

What's the mirrorless equivalent of a Nikon D3300 kit for comparable price? Low end mirrorless don't have a viewfinder, that I know of.

Also, EVF: not so good in bright sunlight. I was recently on a photo outing where a friend brought an A7s. He had serious problems seeing anything in the viewfinder. One more problem to solve in mirrorless.

neil holmes · Feb 28, 2015

AdSR said:
dka91 said:

In fact I don't really think mirror-less cameras are more expensive that their DSLR counterparts, especially some of the low end models which go for peanuts. Even considering bodies like the a7 and a7r they go for really cheap in the UK.

Click to expand...

What's the mirrorless equivalent of a Nikon D3300 kit for comparable price? Low end mirrorless don't have a viewfinder, that I know of.

Also, EVF: not so good in bright sunlight. I was recently on a photo outing where a friend brought an A7s. He had serious problems seeing anything in the viewfinder. One more problem to solve in mirrorless.

--
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/31194604@N08
http://belatedreflections.blogspot.com/

I have more problems looking through an OVF in ANY light with any DSLR (or SLR) I have owned/used than I do with the A7s. Try looking at any view with the sun in or near the frame with a OVF.

Lisetta1 · Feb 28, 2015

Entry level mirrorless systems can be very inexpensive. I recently bought the Fuji X-A1 (no EVF, not the fastest AF but overall pretty nice with APS-C sensor). It came with two surprisingly good (although slow) kit lenses-- a 16-50mm and a 50-230mm equiv. With a memory card thrown in. From Adorama the total price, inc. free shipping, was $450.

It's true the XF lenses are expensive. I'm saving for the XF35mm f 1.4 which is $500. The most expensive ones are twice that.

On the other hand, I could just continue to enjoy the system as is and never have paid as much as for it as I would have for the better compacts or an entry level dslr with comparable reach.

Fuji XF lenses are excellent and imo mirrorless is here to stay, with dSLRs increasingly losing more and more of the enthusiast market.

MaciekPruski · Feb 28, 2015

I don't think that mirrorless is really very expensive compared to DSLR when you look at the whole lineup of bodies and lenses- there are some very good offers in both.

What tipped the scale in favor of DSLR (Pentax) for me was the cost of initial investment to get a usable system. I only had about 1100-1200 USD to spend with no prospects of spending more for a while.

Buying Pentax I got a great fully-featured body, a 50mm equiv. relatively fast prime, a fast portrait lens ( 85 f 1.4 ) and a ultra wide angle lens (14 mm F 2.8) at around this price.

Buying a mirrorless I would have to settle for less lenses and a lower-spec body. It was tempting though and I don't think mirrorles is a bad choice at all. They would really benefit if there were some cheap and fast primes IMO

Roses · Feb 28, 2015

AdSR said:
dka91 said:

In fact I don't really think mirror-less cameras are more expensive that their DSLR counterparts, especially some of the low end models which go for peanuts. Even considering bodies like the a7 and a7r they go for really cheap in the UK.

Click to expand...

What's the mirrorless equivalent of a Nikon D3300 kit for comparable price? Low end mirrorless don't have a viewfinder, that I know of.

Also, EVF: not so good in bright sunlight. I was recently on a photo outing where a friend brought an A7s. He had serious problems seeing anything in the viewfinder. One more problem to solve in mirrorless.

--
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/31194604@N08
http://belatedreflections.blogspot.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-NIKKOR-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B00HQ4W1QE/

D3300 Amazon price $496

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Interchangeable-Digital-Camera-18-55mm/dp/B00EH5UGR6/

A3000 Amazon price $298

As for EVF, for a true beginner it's easier to use than OVF. WYSIWYG, as opposed to chimping after the shot.

There are features on mirrorless cameras that simply have not come to DSLRs. Namely, 4k video. The only cameras out there under $5000 that have 4k video are all mirrorless.

--

http://www.lightfinity.net

dka91 · Feb 28, 2015

Well depends on the system I suppose. I know for example, in m4/3 the Panasonic g6 is fairly low price, and as somebody mentioned the Sony a3000 is very inexpensive.

I do agree that there isn't an abundant amount of options for low end mirrorless cams WITH an EVF, but the options do exist, especially if one is willing to dip into the used market.

As for arguing about the qualities of the EVF, well all mirrorless cameras have EVFs so if you feel that way about them then there is no point arguing, as for YOU a DSLR is the out and out better choice.

MinAZ · Feb 28, 2015

Hint: buy used. Mirrorless cameras depreciate like a rock once used and especially if a newer model is out.

J A C S · Feb 28, 2015

The coolness factor.

DJF77 · Feb 28, 2015

All cameras depreciate. Look how much a used D800 can be picked up for now!

Premium Mirrorless (Fuji etc) are good value Imo. If you are choosing L lenses you'll pay more and get great quality for FF, but the latest Canon L stuff is way more expensive than mirrorless.. Mirrorless to me is about innovation, something that has been lacking in DSLRs for a long time now.

The only way you'll get first class optics with high quality for a reasonable price is with the new mirrorless premium offerings. If you are happy with the cheap feeling plastic DSLR bodies and lenses in the mid mid range and don't mind the bigger size then there's no reason to step away from Canon / Nikon.

There is a market for everybody.

Why are mirrorless systems so expensive?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

neil holmes

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

neil holmes

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts