Why are FF MILCs so Expensive !

Anyone ?

On 13/09/2018 18:41, wrote:
Anyone ?

The manufacturers wish to make a profit, as do their shareholders, and
the distribution and retail chain. Newcomers such as Nikon and Canon
will want to recover their development costs, and like to price the
items as "premium" products (and, of course, the great majority of users
don't need FF, so sales are likely to be relatively small, especially if
new lenses are required.

I think there's at least an element of truth in the above
tongue-in-cheek remarks!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Sep 13, 2018, David Taylor wrote
(in article ):

On 13/09/2018 18:41, wrote:
Anyone ?

The manufacturers wish to make a profit, as do their shareholders, and
the distribution and retail chain. Newcomers such as Nikon and Canon
will want to recover their development costs, and like to price the
items as "premium" products (and, of course, the great majority of users
don't need FF, so sales are likely to be relatively small, especially if
new lenses are required.

I think there's at least an element of truth in the above
tongue-in-cheek remarks!

....and there are a whole mob of non-pro individuals who are insanely brand
faithful, think they have the very best, and have been conditioned to believe
that FF is the only way, because that is what Canon & Nikon have told them.
Also FF sensors are more costly than M45, & APS-C sensors, just as MF sensors
are more costly than FF sensors. Just wait until folks hear what the new 100MB
MF sensor cameras are going to cost.

Remember, all the leading MILCs from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fujifilm, and
even Leica have been going after the same pie eroding the sale of the Canon &
Nikon APS-C & FF DSLRs, and with Nikon 85% of their DSLR business is not with
FF, but APS-C. However, there has been massive loss of FF share to Sony, and
they are not going to take that sitting down.

Personally, I have no need for FF in a DSLR, or MILC, never have, and that is
one of the things which steered me away from Nikon 3 years ago.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Sep 14, 2018, MC wrote
(in article ):

Savageduck wrote:


...and there are a whole mob of non-pro individuals who are insanely
brand faithful, think they have the very best, and have been
conditioned to believe that...

So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the obscene
Apple pricing model, maybe.
0)

Maybe for some.

Personally I buy and use Apple products, because they integrate well, and just
work for me. Before I started using iPhones (my first was an iPhone 4) I had a
Nokia “Brick�, a hard installed Alpine in my car, and various others
including Motorola, and Samsung. The iPhone just works for me, and I suspect
other folks have had the same experience, and are prepared to pay for that
familiarity.

I really don’t care too much what other folks use if it works for them, and
that goes for cameras. I still have, but haven’t used recently my analog film
Pentax, and Yashica cameras, along with my various digital cameras from Nikon,
Canon, and Fujifilm

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , MC
wrote:

...and there are a whole mob of non-pro individuals who are insanely
brand faithful, think they have the very best, and have been
conditioned to believe that...

So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the obscene
Apple pricing model, maybe.

nothing like that at all, because there is no 'obscene apple pricing
model'.

MC:
So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the obscene
Apple pricing model, maybe.

Another pathetic case of Apple envy.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 15/09/2018 12:58, MC wrote:
Davoud wrote:

MC:
So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the
obscene Apple pricing model, maybe.

Another pathetic case of Apple envy.

Not at all. Just making a comparison in reply to a comment. In fact,
I have nothing against Apple (or Apple users). If Apple can get away
with their pricing structure and continue to profit as they do because
they can hold onto their customer base then good luck to them. To be
honest, I quite admire their business strategies for making such
profits, even though I find their pricing a tad obscene considering
their products, on the whole, do nothing more than fulfill the same
tasks as their competitors.

Just because I am a person who would rather pay substantially less for
a product to do a job just as well or, as is often the case, better
than products offered by other "overpriced" brand names, does not mean
I am envious of those who wish to spend a lot more for their products.
Why would I be?


To do a job just as well *for you*. I have an Android phone and iPhone,
and IME the iPhone gets stuff done with very little fuss and a very
shallow learning curve compared to the Android.

The Android is good - just not as good. For me.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , MC
wrote:

So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the
obscene Apple pricing model, maybe.

Another pathetic case of Apple envy.

Not at all. Just making a comparison in reply to a comment. In fact,
I have nothing against Apple (or Apple users).

based on what you've written, yes you do.

If Apple can get away
with their pricing structure and continue to profit as they do because
they can hold onto their customer base then good luck to them. To be
honest, I quite admire their business strategies for making such
profits, even though I find their pricing a tad obscene considering
their products, on the whole, do nothing more than fulfill the same
tasks as their competitors.

nobody is getting away with anything nor are their prices obscene.

prices for apple products are similar to its competitors for similar
products. they have to be. it's a *very* competitive landscape.

Just because I am a person who would rather pay substantially less for
a product to do a job just as well or, as is often the case, better
than products offered by other "overpriced" brand names, does not mean
I am envious of those who wish to spend a lot more for their products.
Why would I be?

except you aren't paying substantially less for a product that's just
as good and certainly not one that's better.

again, prices are similar for similar products.

if you're paying substantially less, then you're getting a lower spec
product, likely quite a bit lower.

low end products might be all you need, which is fine, but that doesn't
make other products overpriced. it simply means your needs are simple.

it's not unusual for those with low end products to be envious of those
with midrange and high end products, wondering how to do the things
they do with little to no effort.

In article , MC
wrote:

So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the
obscene Apple pricing model, maybe.

Another pathetic case of Apple envy.

Not at all. Just making a comparison in reply to a comment. In
fact, I have nothing against Apple (or Apple users).

based on what you've written, yes you do.

Ok. If that is your understanding, you go with it.

nothing you've said indicates otherwise.

If Apple can get away
with their pricing structure and continue to profit as they do
because they can hold onto their customer base then good luck to
them. To be honest, I quite admire their business strategies for
making such profits, even though I find their pricing a tad obscene
considering their products, on the whole, do nothing more than
fulfill the same tasks as their competitors.

nobody is getting away with anything nor are their prices obscene.

Ok. If you say so

prices for apple products are similar to its competitors for similar
products. they have to be. it's a very competitive landscape.

Ok. If you say so.

any objective comparison says so.

take off your blinders.

Just because I am a person who would rather pay substantially less
for a product to do a job just as well or, as is often the case,
better than products offered by other "overpriced" brand names,
does not mean I am envious of those who wish to spend a lot more
for their products. Why would I be?

except you aren't paying substantially less for a product that's just
as good and certainly not one that's better.

Hmmm. Whatever.

again, prices are similar for similar products.

if you're paying substantially less, then you're getting a lower spec
product, likely quite a bit lower.

Erm, I'm not but, again, whatever.

if you're paying 'substantially less' then yes you are getting lower
specs.

either that or you're ignoring specs to further your agenda.

low end products might be all you need, which is fine, but that
doesn't make other products overpriced. it simply means your needs
are simple.

I never buy low end. In fact my use of tech often requires high end.

oh, so you aren't paying substantially less at all.

do try to keep your story straight.

it's not unusual for those with low end products to be envious of
those with midrange and high end products, wondering how to do the
things they do with little to no effort.

Envy? Never. Pity? Occasionally.

It seems funny to me that the mere mention of Apple, even in the
slightest of negative terms, will bring out the Apple defenders like a
colony of soldier ants, appearing from knowhere, trying to defend their
nest. This says just one thing to me. Chips on shoulders.

what's funny is that someone thinks they can make completely false and
unsupported statements and expect people to believe whatever they say,
then whine like a child when proven wrong.

prices are similar for similar specs. sometimes it's a little more and
sometimes it's a little less.

examples:

the samsung galaxy note 9 is $999, the same price as the iphone xs.
both are good phones, except that by samsung's own statements, the
iphone x (last year's model) was two years *ahead* of anything samsung
had (or anyone else for that matter), and the xs just advanced that.

the iphone 8/8+ are comparable to the google pixel 2/2xl. both are last
year's models and sold for similar prices when new. the 8/8+ just got a
price cut and the next pixel will be announced on oct 9.

several years ago, dell announced a 5k display for $2500 (just a
display, no computer), then apple released a retina imac, which had the
same 5k panel *and* a computer for the same price as dell wanted for
*only* a display, forcing dell to slash the price of its display to
compete. even with the now cheaper dell display, it was still not
possible to add a similar computer to what's included with the mac for
the difference in price.

in other words, apple was cheaper.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2844...itor-price-aft
er-apple-launches-new-imac.html
The monitor, when announced, was originally priced $2,499.99. Dell
did not immediately provide reasons for the change on the price.
However, Jennifer Colegrove, founder and president of Touch Display
Research, said Apple¹s 27-inch iMac, which sports a 5K display, may
have been a catalyst.

For $2,499.99, Apple is throwing an entire computing platform into
its 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K Display. Dell¹s UltraSharp 27 is only
a monitor and the company may have had to drop its price to attract
buyers, Colegrove said.

the microsoft surface studio starts at $3000:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio/8xcw9bbpvfv9

an apple imac starts at $1800 for a similar 27" display (less for a
smaller display, not offered in the studio):
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac

the surface studio has touch and can pivot, although it's slower. is
that worth nearly twice the price?

there are countless other examples.

overall, prices are similar for similar specs.

MC:
So, a bit like those who buy Apple products regardless of the
obscene Apple pricing model, maybe.

Davoud:
Another pathetic case of Apple envy.

Why would I be [envious]?

Don't know, but belittling others for their choices in life‹and
especially when those choices have aught to do with you‹is a classic
sign of envy. Sorry.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm