Current rip off prices of PRO DSLR's!!!

T

TommyGun

Suspended / Banned
Messages
55
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
No
I remember the days when the top professional film camera by Nikon was the F5 and cost around £1400. The F100 being a semi-pro camera was around £850. These were I feel respectable prices but with the coming of the digital era prices of DSLR's have went sky high. Now the F100 equivalent the D700 is around £1800 and the F5 equivalent the D3 is around £3300. The D3x is priced around £4500 and the Canon top end camera is even higher. Why are we being 'RIPPED OFF' like this ????
My personal opinion is that the D700 should be around the £1000-£1200 mark and the D3 around the £1800-£2000 mark.
How can these manufacturer's justify such silly prices and why are you silly photographers willing to pay these stupid prices ????
Ok so it is new technology .....SO WHAT!!!!
I believe the manufacturers are being greedy and ripping us off
So what is the solution you ask ???
Stop buying these cameras at extortionate prices and stick with whatever camera you have until the manufacturers are forced to reduce their prices.
It is all about supply and demand ...as long as punters are willing to pay these crazy prices then the manufacturer's will continue to rip us off.

So wait don't buy that next camera that you have on your wishlist and if we all do the same then the manufacturer's will have no option but to reduce these silly prices.

:nono:
 
Yeah, it is especially stupid since cameras are made by machines, the production cost isn't high at all. Its all a big scam to be honest, but the prices for lenses i suppose it can be partially justified because they take a lot longer to make and the quality of the product is by some means determined by a human.
 
Human greed will always over overcome logic Tommygun, too many always think it is greener with an update and most of the time just continue to shoot the way they have always shot and never make use of the newer function. Some just have the cash and have gotta have the latest whistles and bells. Make a stand by all means but you can't expect others to as well unfortunately because they won't. YOu can always buy yesterdays top equipment and yesterdays prices.
 
New technology has to be developed and this cost money
The price you sell something has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing it. Selling price is what the market will stand.
The general public think a price is got from the cost of manufacturing plus profit mark-up, sorry to tell you this is not so.
One last point what year are you talking about with your film camera prices?
 
TommyGun said:
I remember the days when the top professional film camera by Nikon was the F5 and cost around £1400. The F100 being a semi-pro camera was around £850. These were I feel respectable prices but with the coming of the digital era prices of DSLR's have went sky high. Now the F100 equivalent the D700 is around £1800 and the F5 equivalent the D3 is around £3300. The D3x is priced around £4500 and the Canon top end camera is even higher. Why are we being 'RIPPED OFF' like this ????
My personal opinion is that the D700 should be around the £1000-£1200 mark and the D3 around the £1800-£2000 mark.
How can these manufacturer's justify such silly prices and why are you silly photographers willing to pay these stupid prices ????
Ok so it is new technology .....SO WHAT!!!!
I believe the manufacturers are being greedy and ripping us off
So what is the solution you ask ???
Stop buying these cameras at extortionate prices and stick with whatever camera you have until the manufacturers are forced to reduce their prices.
It is all about supply and demand ...as long as punters are willing to pay these crazy prices then the manufacturer's will continue to rip us off.

So wait don't buy that next camera that you have on your wishlist and if we all do the same then the manufacturer's will have no option but to reduce these silly prices.

:nono:
Click to expand...


If anything I 'd say,relatively speaking, camera prices area lot lower, nowadays....
 
Yes you are right prices are lower for consumer DSLRs but not Pro DSLRs. Back in the old days I remember paying around £450 for a Nikon F50 ( entry level camera) but nowadays the entry level cameras have a lot more features etc. I'm referring more to PRO DSLR prices which I feel are overpriced.
 
Yes you save on the cost of film and processing but what about the cost of computer equipment and editing software....that isn't exactly cheap but is absolutely necessary.
 
you are paying a lot for development, and a lot of that has to be regained in the 2 years of a DSLRs lifecycle, rather than the 10 of a film SLR. How much of that is driven by the end user?

Hugh
 
You can't really compare older days film cameras and DSLRs - the latter are much more complex and require a lot more work to be put in to bring one to the market. Software, R&D, hardware (developing new features). Even hardware wise - it is more complicated to develop all the circuitry around sensor to use it up to the best of its abilities...

Cost wise, true, it's mostly done by machines nowadays, but for sensors alone - the larger it is the less useful ones you can get from a single wafer. It basically means that if you say can make 10 sensors out of single wafer that are full frame, 3 of them for example will be thrown away due to defects. If you do tiny sensors for P&S cameras the ratio of the used to broken ones will be higher so they are cheaper. That is the reason why full frame cost so much (and larger sensors even more than that).
 
Camera prices are a lot lower than after the war. A new leica was the equivalent of £6000 then.
 
There are still market forces between the manufacturers, so you could always buy the cheapest.

And the risk of bringing to market a dud. One that is not as technically advanced as it's newly released market rival. That could be financially devastating to a manufacturer.

Previous generation, lower spec model or even second hand are all options too. Or even all three in my case :D

If I were a pro, I would have the best equipment as a matter of course. The weak link would be my limited talent. But as it stands, as an amateur hobby shooter, I'm not troubled by the high prices.

Graham
 
I don't think a pro is too worried about the price of a pro camera. It makes me laugh when people use pro cameras for pointing and shooting with the family. From a pro's perspective, a freelance wedding togger can spend 1-2 weeks doing a wedding (including processing and everything) and earn over 2grand which is what their camera is worth, a few weeks later and thats a couple of lenses. It's their profession and the tools for the job, just like a carpenter would have an expensive bench-saw and tools and drive in an expensive-ish van.

As for £20k+ digital medium formats (mamiya/hasselblad) they're often used in studios and paid for by companies who spend millions on advertising campaigns, and probably spend more than that for billboard space.

Get what you need for the job. if you're not a pro, why use a pro camera? If you want a pro camera but can't afford it, wait a few years until it is succeeded/discontinued.
 
Joe T said:
And how much would you save on film on buying one of these newfangled DSLRs?
Click to expand...

thats what i was going to say. yes if you think about it having to buy a camera and memory card will save alot more especially since you can delete photo's, edit them, print them easier, not to mention the fact of changing film every time you wanted a different iso setting.

i always think about what the d3x would cost in ten years time, this will help you work out why they charge extortionate prices.
 
Look at other items such as a PC or flat screen TV or DVD recorder etc. Look how much you can get for your buck now compared to a few years ago so don't put it all down to inflation.
 
if they bring out a canon 1dmk4 tommorow I will buy it at whatever price.. I presume it will be better than the mkIII and offer me even higher iso.. couple more mega pixels and not make me take two shots of everyhting just in case it hasnt focused first time...

nothing about keeping up with the jonses.. best tool for the job thats all.
 
Wouldn't it be nice to know the cost of manufacture for some of this kit? I can't help feeling that Tommy has a good point here. Of course, top manufacturers have a right to charge extra for quality but some of the pro prices are a little silly. If the D700 was £800 cheaper then I'd be saving like mad for one. At it's current price I won't bother because I can't justify it :(
 
Red Handed said:
Wouldn't it be nice to know the cost of manufacture for some of this kit? I can't help feeling that Tommy has a good point here. Of course, top manufacturers have a right to charge extra for quality but some of the pro prices are a little silly. If the D700 was £800 cheaper then I'd be saving like mad for one. At it's current price I won't bother because I can't justify it :(
Click to expand...

There's more to price than just the factory-gate price. A D700 probably is £800 cheaper there,but how much is it going to cost you, in financial and other ways, to go and collect one? :naughty:
 
TommyGun said:
Look at other items such as a PC or flat screen TV or DVD recorder etc. Look how much you can get for your buck now compared to a few years ago so don't put it all down to inflation.
Click to expand...
And look at the Market to flood the market you will sale a lot of PC or TV's.
I guess you have not been in business....
 
Take the sensor and all the associated electronics out of a DSLR and it will be really cheap. Now add the cost of film and processing. The result is why nobody is buying film cameras, and I think only Nikon and Canon make one apiece.

Modern cameras are incredibly cheap. I bought a Minolta SRT101 50 1.7 in 1970 for £174. Basic manual SLR. That is over £4k in today's money.

If you could do it cheaper, why is nobody doing it?
 
Its the development cost of generating the product and pushing the technology to make your product better than what goes before and the competition.
This is the main cost. the actual production cost is very low, always has been for mass produced cameras like that.

Like with ANYTHING, you WANT the latest technology, and the most fangled device, you pay for it. Infact whole business's have been built & work on this very principle, they buy the latest gear, exploit it, charge the client (happily) for the extra for the pleasure, et voila. Then when the next gear comes out, move to that, and thats where they make their cash, by being first.
With cameras, its maybe less marked than that, but still, the principle stands, if its new and fancy, charge AS MUCH FOR IT WHILE YOU CAN.
Its only up to individuals what price point they want to enter on. For example myself, I shoot soley for myself and don't consider myself in anyway 'pro', so I buy medium/medium low quality gear to suit, no point in me spending £5k a year on the latest dslr body. But somebody that shoots top 5 models in top 5 studios for top 5 magazines WILL and DO spend £5k a year on the latest dslr body.

AS for supply demand, the entire country (UK) could stop buying new cam gear tommorrow and TBH it wouldn't make a jott of difference to the big boys, so why loose out yourself?
 
faster4_tec said:
Like with ANYTHING, you WANT the latest technology, and the most fangled device, you pay for it.
Click to expand...

That's why I prefer cameras between twenty and sixty years old. Someone else has already paid for the product development so I can get them for next to nothing!


Steve.
 
SamuelHearn said:
Yeah, it is especially stupid since cameras are made by machines, the production cost isn't high at all. Its all a big scam to be honest, but the prices for lenses i suppose it can be partially justified because they take a lot longer to make and the quality of the product is by some means determined by a human.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.... the lens are just made from sand - I mean the entire beach is covered in it so they should be much cheaper.

Tsk, bloody rip off merchants these guys are.
 
Its simple why there so high, because us idiots will pay it :cuckoo:
 
desantnik said:
You are wrong.... the lens are just made from sand - I mean the entire beach is covered in it so they should be much cheaper.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are wrong on this for Special optical glass it made up of
41.2% SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide), 34.1% PbO (Lead oxide), 12.4% BaO (Barium oxide), 6.3% ZnO(Zinc oxide), 3.0% K2O(Potassium oxide), 2.5% CaO(Calcium oxide ), 0.35% Sb2O3(Antimony trioxide), 0.2% As2O3(Arsenic trioxide)
As you see its very complex
 
Gosh really?
 
prices of pro dslrs have always been really expensive, does noone remember the first few pro dslrs? d1? kodak 14n? (sorry, ive always been nikon!) they went for stupid money at the time.

pro film slrs were just frames for the film, take out the dslrs sensors processors and computer wizardry and you've essentially got a film slr (not exactly, but im sure you get what i mean) all that exta stuff adds a lot to the price

comparatively, i think cameras are much cheaper now. rememberr when the race to get the fist sub £1k dslr out? now anything over 1k is considered semi pro/pro spec'd
 
I'm not seeing this at all :thinking:.

All that any film camera body does, ultimately, is function as a "hole" to let some light through onto the film - nothing more :shrug:! Compare that to what a DSLR, with it's "built in film laboratory" does and you realise that your comparing apples with ... lychees :D.
 
desantnik said:
Gosh really?
Click to expand...

That's you told :lol:

Naboo32 said:
I'm not seeing this at all :thinking:.

All that any film camera body does, ultimately, is function as a "hole" to let some light through onto the film - nothing more :shrug:! Compare that to what a DSLR, with it's "built in film laboratory" does and you realise that your comparing apples with ... lychees :D.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is it all comes down to how much you have to pay for your hole?:thinking:










That may not have come out quite right :suspect: :lol:
 
isn't there a huge percentage of full frame sensors that have to be thrown away after manufacture because they don't come up to scratch? i think i read something a little while back about it, crop sensor sizes they've can now just rattle them off hence the cheaper price...

also if we didn't pay the higher prices for the top gear then how would they fund the technology for the new generation? yeah these are put together by computers and robots but we have to design and build those to make the cameras.

just think of the prices of these new micro four-thirds machines, how many years of work have been put into those? i want the olympus' offering and am willing to pay the price because they'll pour it back into research and the next generation, which will be of course be cheaper.

(i like my rants, just wait till the next person comes into the shop spending 40 minutes of my time to then ask for internet prices, but then thats another rant altogether.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top