Spyro P. wrote:
pinkflood good luck with the reno, been there done that, NEVER doing it again.
Me neither! So far we have redone the entire upstairs (and we are talking total renovation as in new floors, new walls etc), the basement, the heating system, half the electrical system, the kitchen, siding...and we're not even halfway done.
Spyro P. wrote:
depends. You can get designer jeans or tshirts for $200 that are exactly equally crap as the $10 ones.
Oh, definitely. Not saying that you are guaranteed better quality just because you pay a higher price, just that higher quality items in the long run are not necessarily as expensive as they appear judging by price tag alone.
snowboarder wrote:
I'm simply saying there is no explanation for those prices,
The camera maker determines their price, and the market decides if it's fair. If no one buys a product, prices drop until people do (or until you cancel the product, such as the HP Touchpad)
You say there's no explanation. Have you asked the camera makers? I suspect the camera companies have an explanation. Whether you accept it is up to you.
S Dilworth, I agree with every single word in your post.
I'm tired of getting disposable shit. The only thing I can rely upon in my life is the trusty pair of Wolverine trekking boots, purchased in 2007. They are infallible!
Unfortunally, there's nothing to praise in the camera gear, at least current, since even in the most expensive stuff there's something to cut off the production cost. For example: lenses. I know, lenses are the most vulnerable things as they do not have to survive after nuclear blast, but for a man who makes fail everything (which I am), build quality is the alpha and omega. I dropped $30 1984 KMZ Zenitar 50/1.7 on the rocky slope of the ravine and the lens was intact. I dropped $40 1986 DDR Pentacon 4/200 on the floor of the bus at ride and the lens was intact. I dropped $860 2006 AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105 VR at the asphalt (lens hood was set to transporting position) and it died.
Assume price is $5,000.
Rated 150,000 shots.
Salvage value $1,500 (replace the shutter and sell at the used market).
Cost per shot = $3,500 / 150,000 shots = $0.023
If we multiply by 36, it is equivalent to $0.84 per roll of film. Not including the cost of film processing and the cost of the (film) camera. So, it is so cheap.
philber wrote:
I was also caught unawares when Sony announced that the NEX7 would be that pricey. The Fuji price only exacerbated that feeling. My guess is that this is also because the EVIL cameras are progressing so rapidly. From NEX 3/5 to NEX 7 in 18 months is a huge leap. I am pretty sure that the next 18 months will be slower moving and prices also IMHO. Though I d love to be wrong....
a flagship camera deserves a flagship price. but let's compare the 5n and the 7.
5n body only + evf = $950
7 w/ buit in evf = $1200
a 25% increase.
that's less of a difference than a 60d vs a 7d or a65 vs a77.
Wow, hardly anyone has any concept here about how businesses actually function. There is no way that Fuji came out ahead on the X100 for all the R&D for that viewfinder, lens design, and body design.
For the XP-1 add an additional sensor, lens mount, more lenses, different body.
They are charging $1700 for the XP-1 because 1) people will pay it, and 2) they need the margin dollars to invest in future body and lens design. If they need to drop the price a little over time they will. I suspect they will sell as many as they can make if the image quality is there.
Even though Fuji is a big conglomerate company I suspect the photography division operates as its own business unit and they don't make this stuff for fun.
Samsung tried to introduce an affordable body first and look what it got them. They compromised on the body and now they are an afterthought. Same with HP touchpad, Blackberry playbook, etc.
Sony has cash flow in their photo division from all the alpha line and compacts. I bet the margins on the 5n are razor-thin, and show the advantage of fabbing your own sensors.
no but cameras continue to make steady improvement in image quality irrespective of any megapixel, high ISO image quality, or new feature gains. if you don't see the difference or the difference is unimportant to you is another thing entirely. i see image quality differences at the same downsampled resolution between my D3X, D3, and D2X independent of lens differences. it's subtle but it is there and yes, it can be measured.
Herb...
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.
HerbChong wrote:
no but cameras continue to make steady improvement in image quality irrespective of any megapixel, high ISO image quality, or new feature gains. if you don't see the difference or the difference is unimportant to you is another thing entirely. i see image quality differences at the same downsampled resolution between my D3X, D3, and D2X independent of lens differences. it's subtle but it is there and yes, it can be measured.
Herb...
Obviously with each new release of a camera we will be getting improvements. Everyone needs to decide if they want to be on the bleading edge of these improvements and if so, they will need to pay the price to be there. It is like that with any electronic systems.
pingflood wrote:
I bought a 1Ds II three years ago for $2050. Today I could probably sell it for $1700-1800. Meanwhile I know people who have gone through 4-5 cheaper bodies, and have no doubt lost at least $1000 on depreciation over time. And all along I got to shoot with one of the finest digital cameras ever made instead of a plasticky Rebel.
+1
I bought a 1DsII two years ago for roughly the same amount in Australian dollars. I'd never liked the build quality of the other Canon DSLRs but regarded the 1D/1Ds series cameras as "too big and heavy". Borrowing a friend's backup 1Ds for a week taught me how wrong that idea was and I picked up the 1Ds II soon after. What a wonderful camera, when combined with Leica R and Contax C/Y lenses. I'm using the NEX-5N (with Leica M and LTM mount lenses) a lot now but I can't imagine selling the 1Ds II.
snowboarder wrote:
Is it me or it's getting completely stupid? How can Fuji charge $1700
for a camera which will be 100% obsolete in a couple of years?
It's all electronics, getting improved every month. One year is like a century.
What are they thinking? Seriously. I don't mind paying for a lens I know
is gonna last and be as good as today. But cameras are pretty much disposable.
I think $600 for NEX-5N is a fair price. $1200 is too much for NEX-7,
remember, it's gonna be half of that in 6 months! Look at the m43 cameras,
those prices go down so quickly, no doubt as they release a new one every 4 months...
It's ridiculous, it supposed to be getting cheaper, not more expensive.
It's not just you. I think the new D4 and 1D X should be selling for that and ones like this Fuji should be in the $400 to $500 range!
But I blame the dollar devaluation mostly. In 1980 terms $1,700 today was $443.19 which is about right for that camera.
The good news is that these things themselves devalue very quickly! So in just 18 months you will be able to find new ones on the auction sites going for about $500. The GH2 for example came out at around that and today it's $500 (new). The GH1 as another example was well over a grand at release but today it's about $210 (new).
So I've been treating new releases as preview showings and just act as if they actually don't "release" for another 18 months. ：）
The other advantage to that is by the time it's reasonably priced the camera is well known (no gotchas) and there's lots of accessories available!
Bifurcator wrote:
It's not just you. I think the new D4 and 1D X should be selling for that and ones like this Fuji should be in the $400 to $500 range!
But I blame the dollar devaluation mostly. In 1980 terms $1,700 today was $443.19 which is about right for that camera.
The good news is that these things themselves devalue very quickly! So in just 18 months you will be able to find new ones on the auction sites going for about $500. The GH2 for example came out at around that and today it's $500 (new). The GH1 as another example was well over a grand at release but today it's about $210 (new).
So I've been treating new releases as preview showings and just act as if they actually don't "release" for another 18 months. ：）
The other advantage to that is by the time it's reasonably priced the camera is well known (no gotchas) and there's lots of accessories available!
I agree with your general statement about the gear becoming more affordable once you wait a few months. However your numbers are bit too exaggerated GH2 was released at $1500 but that was including the 14-140mm which is a $800 lens. And even now that combo sells for around $1200. Plus I have never seen a GH2 body available for $500 either. So while the price has come down, it is not quite the $1500 to $500 jump that you are implying
Bifurcator wrote:
It's not just you. I think the new D4 and 1D X should be selling for that and ones like this Fuji should be in the $400 to $500 range!
But I blame the dollar devaluation mostly. In 1980 terms $1,700 today was $443.19 which is about right for that camera.
The good news is that these things themselves devalue very quickly! So in just 18 months you will be able to find new ones on the auction sites going for about $500. The GH2 for example came out at around that and today it's $500 (new). The GH1 as another example was well over a grand at release but today it's about $210 (new).
So I've been treating new releases as preview showings and just act as if they actually don't "release" for another 18 months. ：）
The other advantage to that is by the time it's reasonably priced the camera is well known (no gotchas) and there's lots of accessories available!
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...
for spoiled brats prices should be tripled...to be honest.
You think they are making a fortune on these cameras?
You think the xpro1 is some mass market DSLR?
In case you have not noticed, sony is loosing money hand over fist.
You benifit from the xpro whether you buy it or not, because the camera pushes the envelope---it IS the reason it will be obsolete.
Just reading over a few of the posts in this thread reminds me why
I by most of my gear USED.
I have occasionally bought a lens new,
but most camera bodies, used.
