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.

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.

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.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
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.

Sell millions do they?

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.

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.