When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
In article , R. Mark Clayton

SNIP
so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
size.

bogus comparison.

Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££
as
well.

Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).

This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.

What are you talking about -

What you can get today as new from the official channels: top level
analog SLRs. Entry level analog SLRs are no longer available that
way, were sold on a razors and blades model for both lenses and
especially film and cannot be compared without including film
costs, unless you are to comparing DSLRs without sensor.


I meant a decent entry level full frame film
SLR from Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax - they were £££ NOT ££££. Good
technically, but not for the sort of hammer a pro would gie it working 8
hours a day.

And what they were meant to do is today mostly done by compact
cameras, which are ££. And for most users they are better,
smaller and cost much less per frame.


The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
was FREE!

It would now, but ten years ago when film SLR's were still common.

Ten years ago, in 2002, we had the Canon 1D (APS-H, $5,500(?))
and Canon D60 (APS-C, $2,000). Sure, DSLRs were and still are
more expensive, BUT they don't need expensive analog material
and processing.


Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

That's easier - I worked in IT and electronics.

So you're the one who can decide for
- hobbyists of all kinds
- professionals of photography of all kinds
- (rich) people who need status symbols
- collectors
(and the rest) which features they want and for what price?

Even now the trade mags do
regular tear downs on mobile phones, cameras, tablets etc.

Of course. They try to fit mobile phones, cameras, tablets
etc. into some scheme which they hope matches emough of their
readership and what doesn't fit ... is savaged.

However, what's important to a collector (and highly valued in a
collector mag) might well be given a roasting in a consumer mag.
What is important in a consumer mag may well be worthless to a
nature photographer. And what a nature photographer values may
be not good for a wedding photographer.

Having
established what is in it one can easily establish and price up a bill of
parts.

Yup. One human body is worth $4.50[1].

But that's at best manufacturing costs (not even development
costs are included) --- not what something is worth to somebody.

Sure a few extra buttons or a bit more meory might add $ or even $$
to the price, but it is NOT going to add $$$$ even if you gold plate every
bit.

The worth is not the sum of the parts.
How much worth is a pixel? A pixel is trivially to set or change
with about any drawing program, so it must be *extremely* cheap,
basically worth 0.00000000000000000000000000 USD.

How much worth is an 900x600 pixel photograph then --- say of
your wedding, your child or your long dead geat-grandparents?


Anyway the key argument here is that commoditisation of point and shoot
cameras and DSLR's (and mobile phones and PC's and laptops* and flat screen
tellies etc. etc.) has arrived, but up till now none of the existing "posh"
manufacturers has gone for volume and no new entrant has tried to break into
the market (e.g. a lens manufacturer), although on the camera front the
likes of Fuji have seen off Kodak in point and shoot and made a big dent in
the exchangeable lens camera market with high quality fixed lens cameras.

The key argument here is that if *you* think you can do better,
you are welcome to convince investors, build cameras, be the
market leader in that area and become filthy rich.

The DSLR for less than $1000 is quite a few years old. I regularly
see ads for DSLRs for less than 400 EUR (inclusive taxes,
inclusive lens), and 500 EUR DSLRs with 2 lenses they *must*
be going for volume (and not fot high prices), making your claim
completely absurd.

-Wolfgang

[1] http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp