Nikon price cut coming?

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

ghostfox_1 said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, people don't seem to understand how supply chains, scarcity, investment costs (eg to get a factory started, research, etc) work.

Besides that, the D1 was 5k in 1999 bucks when it came out.

In comparison, that's approximately 7.7k right now. We get a much more advanced camera for a third of the price. Seems fine to me?

Click to expand...

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you keep insisting on ignoring the fact that camera equipment is just...not...selling!

And you STILL haven't suggested what the industry can do about that!

Has nothing to do with a Rolls Royce, nor a Ford. It has to do with how do you get people to buy again. I guess your answer is ignore it and maybe it'll fix itself.

Click to expand...

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you keep insisting on ignoring the fact that camera equipment is just...not...selling!

And you STILL haven't suggested what the industry can do about that!

Has nothing to do with a Rolls Royce, nor a Ford. It has to do with how do you get people to buy again. I guess your answer is ignore it and maybe it'll fix itself.

Click to expand...

bobmcdonald said:

Now you have it figured out - the price of golf clubs is way too high.

Click to expand...

ghostfox_1 said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you keep insisting on ignoring the fact that camera equipment is just...not...selling!

And you STILL haven't suggested what the industry can do about that!

Has nothing to do with a Rolls Royce, nor a Ford. It has to do with how do you get people to buy again. I guess your answer is ignore it and maybe it'll fix itself.

Click to expand...

The thing you don't get is that's not how it works. You have investment costs, etc, and you can't always lower the price if you want to stay in business.

Click to expand...

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

BurnImage said:

Jay A said:

justmeMN said:

Jay A said:

The point I was trying to make is that I feel all cameras are priced too high.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D3500 is currently $400, with lens.

The Canon M50 is currently $500, with lens.

I think entry-level cameras are an excellent value.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Those cameras should cost about $200 and $350.

Just my opinion. But they are very entry level. Why is it that I can get a low end (entry level if you will ) 32" TV set for about a hundred bucks? About the same as what a 13" one cost 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think when cameras are compared to TV’s the argument is lost.

Before smartphones existed the camera market was broadly 3 areas:

1. Professional photographers and keen enthusiasts. Pay for the best, always have, always will.

2. Dabbling in photography. Spends a bit more on their new hobby.

3. Typical household, probably buys some kind of consumer point and shoot for snapshots.

Then smartphones came along and all that’s changed is:

Option 3 doesn’t exist anymore, they all use smartphones. That’s it, no other change.

Option 1 and 2 still exist. Option 2 is more price sensitive than ever. Option 1 still spend what they need to or can afford to.

You can’t compare the specialist photography industry to consumer televisions. High end HiFi and Audiophile equipment would be a more appropriate comparison. You want it or need it and pay up accordingly.

As for price, well all the above is relevant. If you are a Pro you’ll buy the tools you need. For advanced enthusiasts you’ll invest your spare cash in your pastime. Within your means.

I fall into the latter, an advanced enthusiast. My spend on camera gear averages out to about $1000 a year over the last 10 years, in fits and starts obviously.

If prices were lower would I spend more? Well that’s a resounding no. I’d simply have more gear for the same spend, at the expense of the camera companies and their profits.

Click to expand...

Your comments above really miss a lot of the point. For instance, you say that the cell phone has replaced the point and shoot cameras. Yes this is very true, but what does that have to do with plummeting DSLR sales? Mirrorless you say? Well, no they have not picked up the slack from declining DSLR sales, not even close. Then you say something like "if prices were lower would I spend more?" Of course you wouldn't "spend more" if prices were lower. I don't even understand the logic of mentioning that. But then you say you would have more gear. Isn't that precisely what I have been saying? That if prices were lower, people would buy more?

The camera industry is choking and has been for several years.It might be one thing if the manufacturers had accepted lower sales and were raising prices to make up for these lower sales but the figures I've seen suggest that some of the manufacturers are beginning to struggle for survival. That idea is a very risky one as well and could make things even worse for the industry.

By far the biggest camera buyers are those who have purchased cameras and do not see the need to upgrade. Hence, the industry is highly saturated. If demand for cameras has thus shrunk, there are basically 4 things camera manufacturers can do.. 1- come out with new, innovative products, 2 - lower prices, 3 - accept the fact that they are a declining industry and downsize, or 4 - Keep chugging along hoping things will get better.

OK I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I am just repeating myself and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think I missed any of the points, I think my post was quite succinct and on point. You might not agree but I do find your counter post to be incoherent and a bit rambling.

I think you’re trying to say camera gear should be cheaper? Without really providing a reason why......

Click to expand...

I said I was going to bow out, but I have to respond to this...

I don't know how I can provide a better reason why! Sales have plummeted. I've said this over and over.

If I stand on a street corner selling coffee mugs for $1 a mug and then raise my price to $2 a mug and I end up selling less than I'd like to be selling, I'd obviously have to reevaluate my decision to raise my price to $2.

The industry is NOT happy with sales. Not for the last 5+ years. Camera stores have gone out of business. There's been talk for years of one or two camera companies shutting down their camera manufacturing, or at least selling it off. Hardly a month goes by where there isn't yet another editorial someplace on this.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, there really isn't any point to it. Go on believing what you want without any clear explanation of why you think sales have plummeted. It's fine.

Click to expand...

To sum this thread up. Jay A wants a Rolls Royce, at Ford money.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you keep insisting on ignoring the fact that camera equipment is just...not...selling!

And you STILL haven't suggested what the industry can do about that!

Has nothing to do with a Rolls Royce, nor a Ford. It has to do with how do you get people to buy again. I guess your answer is ignore it and maybe it'll fix itself.

Click to expand...

It’s quite simple. The camera industry is selling to its remaining customer base. That is professional photographers and enthusiasts. They will pay what they have to pay or want to pay. There is nothing else. It’s a niche market. I find it hard to comprehend that you cannot see that.

Changing the price downwards for niche sectors will not entice new buyers that have no interest in said niche. Period.

The price of golf clubs could reduce by 50% tomorrow. It won’t make me take up golf......

Click to expand...

Jay A said:

Yes I get that. Read the entire thread and you might see that I suggested somewhere that perhaps the manufacturers need to find ways to reduce costs in order to lower prices.

Click to expand...

ghostfox_1 said:

Jay A said:

Yes I get that. Read the entire thread and you might see that I suggested somewhere that perhaps the manufacturers need to find ways to reduce costs in order to lower prices.

Click to expand...

No, it's clear that you don't. These costs are already in place. You can't change the past. You also can't make the supply chain cheaper in a lot of places, due to regulatory costs, etc.

Click to expand...

Jay A said:

Jay A wrote:...the manufacturers need to find ways to reduce costs..

Click to expand...

George Paulides said:

I do not know about price cuts but Nikon Australia has put pricing up here by up to 20% on bodies and lenses. They are in good company with Sony and Olympus doing the same. Our dollar has come down by 8% in the last 6 to 8 months but I think the vendors have taken the opportunity to make more margin as a result of the supply constraints caused by COVID.

Click to expand...

Boudewijn van der Drift said:

do you mean corona research needs more microscopes?

Corona being a virus, it needs an electron micoscope to be visible, not an optical one.

Click to expand...

kayaker_24 said:

From various reports camera sales are way down due to the virus. Is it a good bet Nikon will cut prices soon to boost sales? Looking at a Z50 but price is holding steady.

Click to expand...

kayaker_24 said:

From various reports camera sales are way down due to the virus. Is it a good bet Nikon will cut prices soon to boost sales? Looking at a Z50 but price is holding steady.

Click to expand...

Patco said:

kayaker_24 said:

From various reports camera sales are way down due to the virus. Is it a good bet Nikon will cut prices soon to boost sales? Looking at a Z50 but price is holding steady.

Click to expand...

https://en.nikon.ca/nikon-products/sales-event.page

Click to expand...