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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
once agin: medium vs. digital | Steve Lefevre | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 39 | November 23rd 04 12:49 AM |
Digital zoom camera & lots of selection questions | Lou | Digital Photography | 5 | November 12th 04 12:43 AM |
What was wrong with film? | George | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 192 | March 4th 04 02:44 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |