Correct.
My first camera was a Agfa Silette , and was a gift from my Father...........I used the Agfa till I switched over to my first digital camera which was the Olympus C-770 Ultra Zoom, and so far I remember I paid about $A 650.00 for it.........Comparisions are only a tool to see if they are gauging us one way or the other.But compare prices re inflation will not change the prices the camera makers asking, apart that one cannot compare the prices asked for cars / golf / food etc for cameras, if cameras industries would lower their prices just because other things are cheaper, then this would result in a flood that every maker has to lower their prices......in other words : one has to pay the price asked for a camera / car / food etc........The point is when you use inflation you have to compare prices. This way one can make sure cameras are not going up more than other things in life. Which would show one way or the other if the camera industries pricing tactics were really unfair.But this is still a photographic forum, one can stay on the topic " Money " for camera's , but why it has to shift to cars / golf / food etc ? this leading then to endless none related comments.......I think for the true topic, inflation has caused the apparent increase in camera cost. Just as others have talked about it concerning food, housing, and utility bills rising. I think golf is a good comparison. Probably better than the others since both are considered hobbies by most of us.I absolute believe you that none of your friends , and yourself play golf, but what has golf to do with camera's, as this was / is the topic on this thread ?Total nonsense.I agree with this 100%. I have three good friends who have been shooting for decades. Two own Canon D60s and one owns a D50. My sister in law paid about 500.00 dollars for a Nikon ( don't recall the model ) and lens 14 years ago when my niece was born.
Of all the people I have known personally in my 59 years they are the only four who I know that have spent 500.00 dollars or more on a camera and lens. I look at golf and photography in the same way. A good set of irons, woods, driver, and putter can easily set you back 1500.00 to 2000,00 dollars. My K1 was 2400.00 for camera and lens.
They are both viewed as luxury hobbies in my mind. Some of my friends and family have just as hard a time comprehending 2400.00 on a camera and lens as they did when I spent 300.00 on a new driver or 900.00 on a new set of irons. At least with my camera, I do not have any green fees still to pay
There have always been people that had no many to pay the rent never mind buy a camera.
Reality is that cameras have never been as affordable as now.
And yes , it has to do with needing to work for fewer hours than before to buy one.
BTW, I don't have close friends that play golf , so none of my friends would spend any money for that hobby. However just outside the nearest town there is a very large golf club with plenty of people having their thousands of dollars of clubs , cart, membership and several an apartment right there.
Should they make golf more affordable ?
Why so often you come on with a different topic just to compare with something which is the original topic, why not stay on the topic ?......
Here is some food for thought: I bought my first windows computer in 1994. It cost 800.00 and did not come with a CD Drive, sound card, or monitor. My same 800.00 dollars gets me a lot more PC today. Quite honestly I can spend 600,00 and get a lot more computer today. Can you say the same today about your first 120.00 dollar camera, Does your 120.00 dollars get you a lot more camera today?
My first crop sensor DSLR, the D30, started out at a retail of well over $3k. It was a measly 3 megapixels, shot at a max rate of 3 frames per second until the buffer filled - which was only 8 large/fine jpg images. I won't bother going through the rest of the specs. I waited until the price dropped, but still paid over $2k.
Absolute perfectly said !!!!!!!
I agree 100%.
I agree in the long run camera equipment is not expensive. That is why I finally went all in on the K1. I only wished I would have done it two years ago.
I think you may have hit on something; but then a lot of people will say why pay 250.00 dollars for a camera that won't do video when my phone can already do both.
An entry-level ILC these days gets very little R&D, it's all trickled down from previous cameras. Meaning the cost to implement video is pretty close to $0.
A very well made argument, thanks for sharing.
Well said. The higher the price they go, the less appealing they become to the average consumer, the less popular, the higher the price....vicious cycles.
I honestly think the OP is thinking of days of film when pro cameras were 1000.00 dollars and a good enthusiast was 350.00. And doing so without factoring in inflation. My Koni Omega Rapid M camera would even make him more depressed, a true 6x7 medium format range finder that retailed for around 350.00 dollars in the sixties and seventies.
You are completely wrong. Film SLR's were not excessively expensive. My father had a Canon SLR and 3 or so lenses and he made no money at all in the '70's. Very expensive? Hardly. Non pro SLR's were very affordable.
Yup. In the 90s, if you had wanted an entry level non pro SLR, you could've gotten a Pentax K1000 for $200.
Well, that's settled. So the question is...are cameras less affordable now? We've had many posts so far saying no. What is missing are absolutely stripped models at sub-$200 prices. I don't think, however, that they would restore the early 21st Century health of the camera market - but a few minimalist would be interested.
They gave up on cheap cameras, because people stopped buying them.
What a joke. You compare an enthusiast film camera with a Rebel. Try like for like for a REAL cost comparison. Elan IIe vs a 7D, or to keep it FF vs FF, vs a 6D.
Find out how much he paid for them , then find out how many hours he had to work to make that amount of money.
Do you realize that there are close to 80 million more people in the US since 1990 (the film era). Don't you think camera sales should be far more than the film era? Why is returning to film era sales volume OK when there are 80 more million people NOT buying cameras?
