Digital Camera Pricing

Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.

Soon, at leased in the point and shoot classes, the features,
megapixels, zoom ability in the lower price classes will be all buyers
will need and movement will show and prices may drop some until some new
technological breakthrough.

However, I keep reading on webs and in the photo magazines that there
will be major price drops this year. I wonder if this is all hype.
Prices seem to be extremely high for DSLRs and even somewhat high for
point and shoot.

Lets look at DSLRs first. Year ago you could buy first class Film SLRs
for around $200 to $500. That included some Nikons, Canons, Pentaxs and
Minoltas. And you still can today with even more advanced features like
auto program multi metering auto focus etc. And even accounting for
inflation the digital counterparts to these camera are exceptionally
high. The engineering for the lenses, auto focus, multi metering and
program modes have already been paid for. These features have been out
for years. With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
camera must be exceptional.

Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.

When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
same features. I do expect that to happen.

I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.

Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

measekite wrote:
Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
..

..

..

I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.


There's several things in play here, one is that high-tech equipment
(chip fabrication particularly) takes massive investment in research and
building of plants before they even begin to sell, so the release price
of advancements always takes into account what the company has paid out
already and have to pay off before they start properly making profit on
the product. It's the sensor, LCD and associated electronics you're
paying for.
Also, you get early adopters who are willing to pay more than most for
the product. If people are willing to pay the extra the company will be
quite happy to take the extra. After a while they have to drop the price
to reach a less interested/less rich market, as well as to make room
above for the new stuff they're bringing out next, 'cause it doesn't
matter how good a camera is, there's still a limit to how much anyone
will be willing to pay for it.
The reason the cheapest dSLR is still way above the equivalent dSLR is
because it's still too recent, the technology hasn't been around long
enough to filter down to the bottom.
Give it a few years and you'll get a decent dSLR for the same kind of
price as the equivalent film.

Tom

"measekite" wrote in message
...
Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable pricing
levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase in
technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with the
oldest technology fading from the marketplace.

Soon, at leased in the point and shoot classes, the features, megapixels,
zoom ability in the lower price classes will be all buyers will need and
movement will show and prices may drop some until some new technological
breakthrough.

However, I keep reading on webs and in the photo magazines that there will
be major price drops this year. I wonder if this is all hype. Prices
seem to be extremely high for DSLRs and even somewhat high for point and
shoot.

Lets look at DSLRs first. Year ago you could buy first class Film SLRs
for around $200 to $500. That included some Nikons, Canons, Pentaxs and
Minoltas. And you still can today with even more advanced features like
auto program multi metering auto focus etc. And even accounting for
inflation the digital counterparts to these camera are exceptionally high.
The engineering for the lenses, auto focus, multi metering and program
modes have already been paid for. These features have been out for years.
With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to manufacture
should not be that great. I think that the profit on these camera must be
exceptional.

Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the
N80.

When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the same
features. I do expect that to happen.

I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.

Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

Actually, according to Canon, DSLR demand far outstrips the demand for film
SLRs. And the R&D for film is not progressing at the rate that it is for
digital, being far more incremental. Further, the prices for digital SLRs
has dropped a lot, vis a vis features. A Kodak/Canon DCS 560, a 6 megapixel
camera introduced in late 1998 sold for nearly $25,000. Now you can buy a
6mp Canon body with more capability for under $1000. That older camera
could shoot one frame per second for a maximum of three frames, for
instance.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

writes:

With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
camera must be exceptional.

Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
DSLR? Sure, you don't need the film takeup spool and film winding
mechanism, but that's pretty simple mechanics. You still need the
shutter and reflex mirror and the high-precision body holding everything
together with accurate spacings. Most of the expensive stuff is still
present. And then you have to add the CCD, LCD, processing electronics,
and card interface that are not present on the film SLR. You provide
essentially nothing to support your argument that DSLRs cost little more
to make.

Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.

You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
mention just one cost of the DSLR?

When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
same features. I do expect that to happen.

P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
more reasonable here.

I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.

You also have to consider how long a model is sold to determine how many
units the R&D costs have to cover. Digital SLRs have a lifetime of only
a few years, film ones last longer (just because the market isn't
changing as fast).

Dave

measekite wrote:
Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the
computer

snip

Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

You're making the classic mistake of trying to base the price of a
manufactured item on the actual cost of production. It doesn't work
that way. Prices are set by the market, not by how much it costs to
manufacture. If there are huge margins, then many players jump in and
drive prices down until the margins are so bad that everyone except the
most efficient manufacturers bail out.

In the case of D-SLRs, Canon and Nikon have a huge advantage that is
nearly impossible to overcome, the installed base of users. Canon is
locking up future sales by getting buyers into their system with entry
level D-SLRs. Canon is reaping big rewards from having the only
low-noise sensor for D-SLRs.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite
wrote:

Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.
....

Wow! You've got this all figured out.
I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
camera manufacturing.
Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
others can. We'll be rich!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

Bill, you can be cynical, but the OP has a point: the digital camera market
might evolve in the same fashion as the PC computer market with
characteristics like winner takes all, 'good enough' eclipses anything over
time. Maybe lens quality issues break the parallel as larger higher MP CCDs
require harder to make lenses. OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy lens probably
will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.

-- Hans
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite
wrote:


Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.

...

Wow! You've got this all figured out.
I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
camera manufacturing.
Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
others can. We'll be rich!

Reply is embedded

Dave Martindale wrote:

writes:



With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
camera must be exceptional.



Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
DSLR? Sure, you don't need the film takeup spool and film winding
mechanism, but that's pretty simple mechanics. You still need the
shutter and reflex mirror and the high-precision body holding everything
together with accurate spacings. Most of the expensive stuff is still
present. And then you have to add the CCD, LCD, processing electronics,
and card interface that are not present on the film SLR. You provide
essentially nothing to support your argument that DSLRs cost little more
to make.



The shutter is built diffently.

Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.



You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
mention just one cost of the DSLR?


I am talking about mfg cost and not engineering. Look at the price of
other electronics that use similar stuff.



When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
same features. I do expect that to happen.



P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
more reasonable here.



They were not sold in any large quantities when the $200 PS was selling
for $2,000. The relative difference in price between PS film and
digital is closer to the difference in costs than dSLR and SLR.



I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.



You also have to consider how long a model is sold to determine how many
units the R&D costs have to cover. Digital SLRs have a lifetime of only
a few years, film ones last longer (just because the market isn't
changing as fast).



They cannot sell enough because they are obsoleting models by no putting
all of the ready features that they can in one shot but splitting up the
technology into models. It is like the software industry that has
incremental updates with a few features frequently. Thats what
Microsoft was doing until big business said no. Now you have major
update every couple of years or longer.

Dave

Get me the patents. ;-)

Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite
wrote:



Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.


...

Wow! You've got this all figured out.
I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
camera manufacturing.
Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
others can. We'll be rich!

Scharf-DCA wrote:
measekite wrote:

Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the

computer

snip

Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.


You're making the classic mistake of trying to base the price of a
manufactured item on the actual cost of production. It doesn't work
that way. Prices are set by the market, not by how much it costs to
manufacture. If there are huge margins, then many players jump in and
drive prices down until the margins are so bad that everyone except the
most efficient manufacturers bail out.

In the case of D-SLRs, Canon and Nikon have a huge advantage that is
nearly impossible to overcome, the installed base of users. Canon is
locking up future sales by getting buyers into their system with entry
level D-SLRs. Canon is reaping big rewards from having the only
low-noise sensor for D-SLRs.

Idiot question: What stops someone else from making a DSLR with a
common mount?

If a Sigma or a Pentax or a ... makes a dSLR with a Nikon or Canon lens
connector at the end, they'll sell a hell of a lot more bodies that way.
I'd think they're better off getting a $1000 sale from a large swath
of the market, than trying to convince a few people to throw out a lot
of kit and give them a lockin position worth $5000.