Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Fuji X-Pro 1 is very expensive relative to say a Sony NEX-5n - and it's likely the image quality will be roughly the same - but they are intended for completely different markets and have vastly different features as well as update schedules.
Can I translate this: Fuji will still be unchanged in 3 years and it will be cr@p
comparing to NEX-5Z which will be $500 and a much, much better camera
snowboarder wrote:
Can I translate this: Fuji will still be unchanged in 3 years and it will be cr@p
comparing to NEX-5Z which will be $500 and a much, much better camera
Then you have answered your own question. Get yourself a NEX and don't envy the Fuji. I don't see the issue you are raising. Too expensive for you...get something you can afford.
snowboarder wrote:
But that's why those prices now can not be explained.
They're easily explained: the technology continues to mature, and as it does, WE drive the prices of slightly outdated gear down by jumping at the newest shiny gadget. A D300 takes just as good of a picture now as it did when it came out, but we no longer feel it's worth the original asking price, because other things have come along since (and we expect more imminently).
chez wrote:
I don't see the issue you are raising. Too expensive for you...get something you can afford.
This is simply the lamest I've heard to be honest. I'm simply saying
there is no explanation for those prices, but with your approach
they should be raised I guess...
chez wrote:
But do these cameras somehow explode after 1 year or do they deteriorate somehow? If not, then they must take the same quality images a year later as they did when you took them out of their wrapping. Who cares how much they are on the used market...just continue making great images. You'll never win the "need the latest greatest" technology race.
This.
If you buy a quality product, it will continue to serve you for years to come. Whether you feel the need to upgrade is entirely up to you and your own obsessions.
It's a game we all play with ourselves, and that the manufacturers play with us.
snowboarder wrote:
This is simply the lamest I've heard to be honest. I'm simply saying
there is no explanation for those prices, but with your approach
they should be raised I guess...
Nope. If they are too expensive, no one will buy them and their prices will come down. The reason the x100 prices did not come down is because they were selling well. Time will tell if the latest Fuji is priced too high.
The same can be said about Leica cameras, Zeisse lens and Contax systems...yet they continue to sell at high prices, so there must be someone buying them.
If you find it hard to explain the price of the Fuji, can you explain the price of the new Canon 1dx?
chez wrote:
But now a days we fire off 500 shots with a DSLR in a good afternoon whereas in 73 if you shot off a couple of rolls you did just fine.
Whether you shoot 500 or 72, somehow the number of great shots at the end of the day stays about the same. I've gone back to shooting 4x5 for the past year. It's the cheapest format I own.
Two23 wrote:
Whether you shoot 500 or 72, somehow the number of great shots at the end of the day stays about the same. I've gone back to shooting 4x5 for the past year. It's the cheapest format I own.
Two23 wrote:
Whether you shoot 500 or 72, somehow the number of great shots at the end of the day stays about the same. I've gone back to shooting 4x5 for the past year. It's the cheapest format I own.
Kent in SD
I shoot a lot of 6x9 and just got myself a 4x5 system. It's kind of neat to use 30 year old systems and still produce superior results to today's techno crazed systems
They do it because they know for certain: people are willing to pay exorbitant prices. I wonder if there would be a point beyond which no one will buy mediocre camera with astronomical price tag. Everything goes to be like that. Simple people can't justify a car purchase, for example. Because the price of the car aside, they have no money to feed the engine. In the countries of eastern Europe 100 liters of fuel will rid 1/2 of their monthly salary. What the bloody hell?
Just look at Sigma SD1. Are you aware of at least one buyer?
snowboarder wrote:
This is simply the lamest I've heard to be honest. I'm simply saying
there is no explanation for those prices, but with your approach
they should be raised I guess...
Well, the obvious explanation is simply basic supply and demand. The market will determine the price in the end.
Other considerations with the NEX-5n v X Pro 1:
Small niche market vs larger, general market
Pro/ enthusiast camera system (and the features and build which go along with that) vs consumer electronics gadget
Professional support vs Consumer support
All of the above would have a major impact on price. For instance, Profesional support from Fuji in the U.S. usually means a 48 hour turn around. I doubt you would get that with a Sony consumer camera. There is a cost associated with that.
snowboarder wrote:
This is simply the lamest I've heard to be honest. I'm simply saying
there is no explanation for those prices, but with your approach
they should be raised I guess...
Why does my new Taylor-Made driver (golf club) cost $449 for a single club ?
Why does my Les Paul Custom (guitar) cost $2800 ?
Why does a bottle of Opus One (wine) cost $150 ?
Heck, why does a night for 2 at the movies cost $25 or going to an NFL game cost $250 ?
Because people will pay it
You don't like NFL ticket prices, watch it free on TV
You don't like the cost Fuji wants to charge, shoot a NEX5 or something that you think is more reasonable in cost.
Vote with your wallet as its the only vote that matters
Otherwise its really nothing but whining about an item you want, but not at a price you can afford or are willing to pay, which simply is life.
You know what I want ? To live on the beach, but you know what ? Cost $5 million easily to do that, and yes, some of the homes/lots are hardly more than shacks and a horrible deal, but what good is complaining going to do me as long as thats what they sell for ?
Should I post internet threads about it ?
Is that going to make someone go and sell me the home I want for a mere $300k ? Not on your life is that going to happen, just as complaining about camera prices isn't going to do anything either.
There are a darn lot of well to do enthusiast who think nothing of dropping $1700, and there are also a lot of not financially well off, but diehard GAS having photo nuts that will eat ramen for a month to afford their "Dream camera" because its what is important to them.
Preorders sold out in a matter of hours again, certainly plenty of demand at current prices I'd say.
So in the end choice is either buy it if it meets your needs, or don't.
You know what also keeps prices high ? Everyone on this forum spending all this time talking about photography and camera gear and what a great hobby it is.
If no one was out there taking photos, posting photos etc, if taking pictures was this totally uncool thing no one would ever admit to actually doing, prices would be much lower.
They'd be giving cameras away because no one wants them. But we are all a victim of our own success because these very items we make 20 pages threads about in anticipation of it even coming out is the very reason people can charge what they want.
If not one person cared in the slightest about the OM-D, I mean zero hype at all, I'm sure you could pick up one for a very reasonable cost soon after release.
But what do we, as photographers in general, do ? Obsess over an image showing just a single corner of the camera.
If you have a product that gets tens of thousands of page views to see what the top right corner looks like are you really going to price it cheap ?
millsart wrote:
You know what also keeps prices high ? Everyone on this forum spending all this time talking about photography and camera gear and what a great hobby it is.
If no one was out there taking photos, posting photos etc, if taking pictures was this totally uncool thing no one would ever admit to actually doing, prices would be much lower.
They'd be giving cameras away because no one wants them. But we are all a victim of our own success because these very items we make 20 pages threads about in anticipation of it even coming out is the very reason people can charge what they want.
If not one person cared in the slightest about the OM-D, I mean zero hype at all, I'm sure you could pick up one for a very reasonable cost soon after release.
But what do we, as photographers in general, do ? Obsess over an image showing just a single corner of the camera.
If you have a product that gets tens of thousands of page views to see what the top right corner looks like are you really going to price it cheap ?...Show more →
I wonder how did leica survive before internet then? Surely no would pay the price to buy a leica in good old days since there were no forum threads to create hype about them?
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
x1-pro $3500 for a 3 lens system. yikes.
$3500 for an 18mm f2.0, a 35mm f1.4, a 60mm f2.4 Macro, and an APS-C body that's being marketed as top of the line doesn't seem extortionate to me. The 35mm and 18mm in particular seem like great bargains--compare their price to the (manual aperture, manual focus, plastic-bodied) Samyang 35mm and Oly 12mm (or the abysmal Sigma 20/1.8 if you must).
Of course the price is just the price--until we start seeing lotsa shots from the system and people get some hands-on time with it, no one can really judge if the price is worth it.
millsart wrote:
If you have a product that gets tens of thousands of page views to see what the top right corner looks like are you really going to price it cheap ?
Definitely yes. Are you familiar with Canon EOS 300D success? It was the first mass digital camera which, to say, popularized photography all around the world. Why now XXXD line is still cheap at what it offers while the price of compact G1X rises above the stratosphere? Your post in line 'you have no enough money, so buy something cheaper' doesn't explain why I can get more advanced camera for lower price than the worse one.
Technician wrote:
Are you familiar with Canon EOS 300D success? It was the first mass-opened digital camera which, to say, popularized photography all around the world.
The 300D was introduced as a $1200 camera, plastic-y and with a small viewfinder, when a very nice near-pro-level film camera would be <$500 (and a usable point-and-shoot film camera would be <$50). This certainly opened up digital SLR photography to a lot more people (myself included) than the previously available options, but it was by no means what you would consider a cheap camera at the time. The target market was enthusiastic amateurs making the, not "common knowledge," decision that digital imaging had sufficient merits to be worth shelling out far more money than an SLR "ought" to cost (based on film standards) for a, in many ways, inferior camera body.
Now that digital photography is well established among both professionals and amateurs, the perception of what a "reasonable" camera price is has greatly increased. People are no longer shocked by a decent point-and-shoot costing ~$300 (which used to be a mid level SLR price), or an "entry level" SLR costing $600-$1000.
The mirrorless camera market is likewise appealing to a smaller set of enthusiasts who see big benefits against the broader tide of "common knowledge." Whether the appeal is the more portable compact size, the ability to use top-notch rangefinder lenses, or both, a few people will be willing to pay a lot more than a mid-grade camera "should" be worth compared to DSLR alternatives. If this becomes increasingly popular (as I suspect it will), production will eventually rise and prices fall.
millsart wrote:
You know what also keeps prices high ? Everyone on this forum spending all this time talking about photography and camera gear and what a great hobby it is.
If no one was out there taking photos, posting photos etc, if taking pictures was this totally uncool thing no one would ever admit to actually doing, prices would be much lower.
They'd be giving cameras away because no one wants them. But we are all a victim of our own success because these very items we make 20 pages threads about in anticipation of it even coming out is the very reason people can charge what they want.
If not one person cared in the slightest about the OM-D, I mean zero hype at all, I'm sure you could pick up one for a very reasonable cost soon after release.
But what do we, as photographers in general, do ? Obsess over an image showing just a single corner of the camera.
If you have a product that gets tens of thousands of page views to see what the top right corner looks like are you really going to price it cheap ?...Show more →
More likely, the amazing digital cameras of today wouldn't exist as there wouldn't be a market for technological advances. You can delude yourself into thinking that the camera companies would be handing out product for free, but following your premise to its logical conclusion we'd probably be using something like holgas, because no company would bother making a quality camera or spend vast resources on R&D. I'm happy that there are forums like this that hype the next new thing, ecstatic that there is a market for cutting edge digital bodies, and downright gleeful that there are a number of huge competitors pushing one another to create better and cheaper machines.
Technician wrote:
Definitely yes. Are you familiar with Canon EOS 300D success? It was the first mass digital camera which, to say, popularized photography all around the world. Why now XXXD line is still cheap at what it offers while the price of compact G1X rises above the stratosphere? Your post in line 'you have no enough money, so buy something cheaper' doesn't explain why I can get more advanced camera for lower price than the worse one.
The question is that if a camera is worse as well as more expensive then why would you be interested in it at all? If you are interested in that camera then there must be at least some aspects in which it is more attractive than the more "advanced" camera. If the camera is worse for your uses then you can safely ignore its price and not worry about it. If it does attract you in some way then you have to decide if you are willing to pay the premium for it.
I just read that Fujifilm sold a hundred thousand units of X100. Now you could argue that an X100 with its fixed 35mm lens and a price tag of $1200 was overpriced compared to a canon rebel or a 60D. But a hundred thousand users found that it offered them something which they didn't find in other cameras. For them the cost was worth what they were getting out of the camera. For you it might not be. It is hard to argue what is a "fair" price for an item because price ultimately is defined on one end by what people are willing to pay as well as competition, and on the other end by what the company needs to charge to remain profitable.
I've gone back to shooting 4x5 for the past year. It's the cheapest format I own.