If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
On 2012-02-28 16:55 , RichA wrote:
4 tiers of DSLRs: -Cheapo plastic consumer models. -Intermediate level metal-bodied units. -Semi-pro enthusiast models. -Pro bodies. Why not get rid of the cheap ones? Delete the plastics ones. Have three tiers. Demand will still be there so production of the intermediates and semi-pro bodies will likely have to rise, and prices will go down for them. Overall profit could be as high or higher. Just like with economy cars, there is little profit in the cheap DSLRs, the profit comes from SUV's and trucks and luxury vehicles. People will definitely be paying more than if cheap DSLR existed, but they would be paying less for good ones. Back in the 1970's when there really wasn't such a thing as cheap SLR's dominating (Canon had a couple, Pentax had one) people were forced to buy something decent to participate in the hobby. And the difference between then and now is companies like Pentax and Olympus and Minolta weren't teetering on the edge of extinction in the 1970's. That didn't happen until the 1980's when the plastic junk started coming out. If you can't tell that the camera making the photo was plastic, it doesn't matter. Most of the companies that stayed metal only in their body lines have all but disappeared. Nobody is forcing you to buy plastic cameras. So don't. Better yet, start the RichAMetalOnlyCameraCo. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:20:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-02-28 16:55 , RichA wrote: 4 tiers of DSLRs: -Cheapo plastic consumer models. -Intermediate level metal-bodied units. -Semi-pro enthusiast models. -Pro bodies. Why not get rid of the cheap ones? Delete the plastics ones. Have three tiers. Demand will still be there so production of the intermediates and semi-pro bodies will likely have to rise, and prices will go down for them. Overall profit could be as high or higher. Just like with economy cars, there is little profit in the cheap DSLRs, the profit comes from SUV's and trucks and luxury vehicles. People will definitely be paying more than if cheap DSLR existed, but they would be paying less for good ones. Back in the 1970's when there really wasn't such a thing as cheap SLR's dominating (Canon had a couple, Pentax had one) people were forced to buy something decent to participate in the hobby. And the difference between then and now is companies like Pentax and Olympus and Minolta weren't teetering on the edge of extinction in the 1970's. That didn't happen until the 1980's when the plastic junk started coming out. If you can't tell that the camera making the photo was plastic, it doesn't matter. Most of the companies that stayed metal only in their body lines have all but disappeared. Nobody is forcing you to buy plastic cameras. So don't. Better yet, start the RichAMetalOnlyCameraCo. RAMOCC? The mistakes go in before the name goes on. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
Alan Browne wrote in
: On 2012-02-28 16:55 , RichA wrote: 4 tiers of DSLRs: -Cheapo plastic consumer models. -Intermediate level metal-bodied units. -Semi-pro enthusiast models. -Pro bodies. Why not get rid of the cheap ones? Delete the plastics ones. Have three tiers. Demand will still be there so production of the intermediates and semi-pro bodies will likely have to rise, and prices will go down for them. Overall profit could be as high or higher. Just like with economy cars, there is little profit in the cheap DSLRs, the profit comes from SUV's and trucks and luxury vehicles. People will definitely be paying more than if cheap DSLR existed, but they would be paying less for good ones. Back in the 1970's when there really wasn't such a thing as cheap SLR's dominating (Canon had a couple, Pentax had one) people were forced to buy something decent to participate in the hobby. And the difference between then and now is companies like Pentax and Olympus and Minolta weren't teetering on the edge of extinction in the 1970's. That didn't happen until the 1980's when the plastic junk started coming out. If you can't tell that the camera making the photo was plastic, it doesn't matter. Most of the companies that stayed metal only in their body lines have all but disappeared. Nobody is forcing you to buy plastic cameras. So don't. Better yet, start the RichAMetalOnlyCameraCo. We only have the result to see, and the result is that most companies except Nikon and Canon are in bad shape, and that includes Sony, who has the money (maybe!) to continue making DSLRs but who makes no money at it. In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
Irwell wrote in news:gxmq3ghqapmx.s8lo4gv00l8u$.dlg@
40tude.net: Nobody is forcing you to buy plastic cameras. So don't. Better yet, start the RichAMetalOnlyCameraCo. RAMOCC? The mistakes go in before the name goes on. It does exist, but they call it Leica. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
On 29/02/2012 2:59 p.m., Rich wrote:
In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
In article
, RichA wrote: In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. Prove it. Owning an SLR was not as common then as owning a DSLR now. prove it yourself. back then, slrs were quite common. it wasn't until the 1980s until compacts were more than an instamatic and started to eat at slr share. today, cellphone cameras are the most common, while compact p&s cameras are more than good enough for most situations, especially with the super-zooms many of them have. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
RichA writes:
On Feb 28, 10:42*pm, Me wrote: On 29/02/2012 2:59 p.m., Rich wrote: In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. Prove it. Owning an SLR was not as common then as owning a DSLR now. I dunno about proving it, but that's not the way I remember it. Anybody who wanted anything beyond the most basic snapshots basically had to go to an SLR, and hence in any tourist location you'd see a LOT of them, mostly used by people who weren't photo hobbyists in the same sense I am. (Nothing wrong with that of course!) Quite a few kids in highschool had access to spare, castoff, or something SLRs from home, I remember. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
On 1/03/2012 8:59 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes: On Feb 28, 10:42 pm, wrote: On 29/02/2012 2:59 p.m., Rich wrote: In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. Prove it. Owning an SLR was not as common then as owning a DSLR now. I dunno about proving it, but that's not the way I remember it. Same here. The OP either needs to run memtest on what's left between his ears, or concede that as he probably wasn't around in those days, then his unsubstantiated opinion is of less value than others who do remember. My father was a reasonably keen amateur photographer. His first slr was an Alpa Reflex. I don't recall the exact model, but it was a very cumbersome thing to use, as the mirror would not return after taking a photo until it was reset by winding the film advance (this by design - not a fault) and IIRC it was a knob without an advance lever. At that time I had an Agfa Ambi Silette, a small inexpensive rangefinder, which had interchangeable lenses (I think they only ever offered 3 focal lengths) with bayonet mount, and a Synchro Compur shutter behind the bayonet mount. It was quite a nice compact camera - a good camera for a kid to learn with. He replaced the Alpa with an early (mid-late '60s) Pentax Spotmatic, a step forward in ergonomics over the Alpa, but screw mount lenses were a bit of a pain, and IIRC it only had stop-down metering. My first slr was a Minolta SRT 101, a much better and newer design than the older Pentax, with better metering and bayonet mount lenses. Closer to a coveted but pricy Nikon F. By that time, (Japanese) slrs were becoming very common indeed. IIRC, Minolta and other makers did much the same as they do today, they introduced a "higher end" slr (SRT303?) with more features, and an "entry level" (SRT100?) with some features removed, sold alongside the "101". There were high import duties here in those days, so many people would buy an slr when on an overseas trip - as even if they didn't have a great interest in photography, demand was such that they could easily sell it used when they returned and make a profit. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
Me writes:
On 1/03/2012 8:59 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote: writes: On Feb 28, 10:42 pm, wrote: On 29/02/2012 2:59 p.m., Rich wrote: In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. Prove it. Owning an SLR was not as common then as owning a DSLR now. I dunno about proving it, but that's not the way I remember it. Same here. The OP either needs to run memtest on what's left between his ears, or concede that as he probably wasn't around in those days, then his unsubstantiated opinion is of less value than others who do remember. My father was a reasonably keen amateur photographer. His first slr was an Alpa Reflex. I don't recall the exact model, but it was a very cumbersome thing to use, as the mirror would not return after taking a photo until it was reset by winding the film advance (this by design - not a fault) and IIRC it was a knob without an advance lever. At that time I had an Agfa Ambi Silette, a small inexpensive rangefinder, which had interchangeable lenses (I think they only ever offered 3 focal lengths) with bayonet mount, and a Synchro Compur shutter behind the bayonet mount. It was quite a nice compact camera - a good camera for a kid to learn with. I inherited a Bolsey 35, a rangefinder 35mm fixed-lens camera, when my mother upgraded to a Minolta fixed-lens rangefinder. My parents weren't ready for an SLR yet (and that upgrade was for a summer spent in Uganda, with travel through Egypt and Greece and Europe before and after). I didn't actually get the Bolsey then, I photographed that trip with my Pixie 127 (I turned 10 that fall, 1964). I got the Bolsey a few years later. Still have negatives from the Pixie and the Bolsey. He replaced the Alpa with an early (mid-late '60s) Pentax Spotmatic, a step forward in ergonomics over the Alpa, but screw mount lenses were a bit of a pain, and IIRC it only had stop-down metering. My first slr was a Minolta SRT 101, a much better and newer design than the older Pentax, with better metering and bayonet mount lenses. Closer to a coveted but pricy Nikon F. By that time, (Japanese) slrs were becoming very common indeed. IIRC, Minolta and other makers did much the same as they do today, they introduced a "higher end" slr (SRT303?) with more features, and an "entry level" (SRT100?) with some features removed, sold alongside the "101". Spotmatic was stop-down, yes; I had one later. Several of the other highschool photographers had Minolta SRT-101s. They must have been newer than I thought, looking at the history. There was an SRT-201 I seem to remember; don't remember a 303. I got a Miranda Sensorex in 1969 (very late in the year), finally, when I'd had a job long enough to save some money. I'd already started doing darkroom work with the 35mm film from the Bolsey, and I put a darkroom into the basement the next year (black plastic stapled to 2x4s). I've photographed and posted a few pages of 60s and 70s camera ads at http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2012/01/photo-gear-price-history/. There were high import duties here in those days, so many people would buy an slr when on an overseas trip - as even if they didn't have a great interest in photography, demand was such that they could easily sell it used when they returned and make a profit. I heard about people buying in the Far East, but was never there myself. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Getting rid of the low-end to make the higher-end cheaper
On 1/03/2012 11:04 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes: On 1/03/2012 8:59 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote: writes: On Feb 28, 10:42 pm, wrote: On 29/02/2012 2:59 p.m., Rich wrote: In the 1970s, companies existed despite the fact the average camera was NOT meant for Joe Public. Crud. Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics, Olympus OMs, the lower priced Canon and Nikon slrs were just as commonly seen hung around the necks of Joe Public as DSLRs are today. Prove it. Owning an SLR was not as common then as owning a DSLR now. I dunno about proving it, but that's not the way I remember it. Same here. The OP either needs to run memtest on what's left between his ears, or concede that as he probably wasn't around in those days, then his unsubstantiated opinion is of less value than others who do remember. My father was a reasonably keen amateur photographer. His first slr was an Alpa Reflex. I don't recall the exact model, but it was a very cumbersome thing to use, as the mirror would not return after taking a photo until it was reset by winding the film advance (this by design - not a fault) and IIRC it was a knob without an advance lever. At that time I had an Agfa Ambi Silette, a small inexpensive rangefinder, which had interchangeable lenses (I think they only ever offered 3 focal lengths) with bayonet mount, and a Synchro Compur shutter behind the bayonet mount. It was quite a nice compact camera - a good camera for a kid to learn with. I inherited a Bolsey 35, a rangefinder 35mm fixed-lens camera, when my mother upgraded to a Minolta fixed-lens rangefinder. My parents weren't ready for an SLR yet (and that upgrade was for a summer spent in Uganda, with travel through Egypt and Greece and Europe before and after). I didn't actually get the Bolsey then, I photographed that trip with my Pixie 127 (I turned 10 that fall, 1964). I got the Bolsey a few years later. Still have negatives from the Pixie and the Bolsey. He replaced the Alpa with an early (mid-late '60s) Pentax Spotmatic, a step forward in ergonomics over the Alpa, but screw mount lenses were a bit of a pain, and IIRC it only had stop-down metering. My first slr was a Minolta SRT 101, a much better and newer design than the older Pentax, with better metering and bayonet mount lenses. Closer to a coveted but pricy Nikon F. By that time, (Japanese) slrs were becoming very common indeed. IIRC, Minolta and other makers did much the same as they do today, they introduced a "higher end" slr (SRT303?) with more features, and an "entry level" (SRT100?) with some features removed, sold alongside the "101". Spotmatic was stop-down, yes; I had one later. Several of the other highschool photographers had Minolta SRT-101s. They must have been newer than I thought, looking at the history. There was an SRT-201 I seem to remember; don't remember a 303. Here it is: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/SRT%20Series.htm Looks like the SR-T 303/"102"/"Super" was the same camera with different names for different markets. I'm surprised to see that the SRT101 dates back to 1966, With open aperture metering and bayonet lenses, it's a long way ahead of the Pentax Spotmatic of that time, but IIRC the Pentax was a much more popular camera. Perhaps the Minolta was much more expensive. I got a Miranda Sensorex in 1969 (very late in the year), finally, when I'd had a job long enough to save some money. I'd already started doing darkroom work with the 35mm film from the Bolsey, and I put a darkroom into the basement the next year (black plastic stapled to 2x4s). I've photographed and posted a few pages of 60s and 70s camera ads at http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2012/01/photo-gear-price-history/. Good work! I found my Ambi Silette listed there for $35.25 (used), and SRT 101 with f1.7 Rokkor for $204.95 new (1967). There were high import duties here in those days, so many people would buy an slr when on an overseas trip - as even if they didn't have a great interest in photography, demand was such that they could easily sell it used when they returned and make a profit. I heard about people buying in the Far East, but was never there myself. Duties were so high here that it was a national sport to buy duty free, and resell on the local market. It was a very nice perk for international airline crew and jet setters. SLRs and small tape recorders were popular items. Even things like pocket sized transistor radios, costing 3 or 4 dollars in duty free stores or destinations could be sold for 5x the price on return. You could get away with bringing in a camera, a tape recorder, and a few cheap pocket radios as "gifts", but if you had a suitcase full of various items, the customs officers (who AFAIK don't take bribes, then or now) could arbitrarily hit you with a very hefty bill. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheaper to rent a car than a P&S!!! | Rich | Digital Photography | 21 | November 6th 06 02:16 PM |
cheaper superzoom | Tippi | Digital Photography | 16 | June 10th 06 01:55 AM |
Cheaper GAS! Save $$$$$$ | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 6th 06 03:55 PM |
D100 now cheaper than D70? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | April 26th 05 10:17 PM |
Would D-70 get cheaper? | y3k via PhotoKB.com | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | January 16th 05 07:45 PM |