I let Bob tell you the US version (or you can Google it...) but
If you were shooting stills for that kind of money you could say buy a used D810 in good condition When entry level cameras were at their peak in the late 00's and early 00's there really wasnt the chance of doing that.
You are right. I was remembering the camera when I went to see it in 2016 and body only.
Could you provide examples in which cameras offering same level of performance and marketed to same general audience are built of cheap materials and at twice the cost? I see a lot of similar spec’d cameras reporting same magnesium bodies and very similar prices. The Z9, for example, is actually less expensive than the DSLR it replaces. The R5 released at a same price as the 5D-IV did in 2017.
and that doesn’t count the ongoing cost of film and processing. That was the hidden, sunken cost of using film cameras. If you were an avid amateur photographer that could easily be hundreds of dollars per year. If you were a professional, it was thousands but you marked up that cost and passed it along to your clients. I suspect it was the profits from film sales which kept most camera stores in business.
My first ICL was a Minolta SRT101 purchased in 1969-70 with a 50mm lens for around $150. That's $1200 in today's money.
Month. Fixed that for ya. My first “pro” digital body — considered an extravagance by many — easily paid for itself within a year.
Also D&P , in particular if you had a busy mini lab, as well as accessories in general.
They know the market will dry up soon, so they make as much money they can right now, and that is the high end segment.
