snowboarder wrote:
Please say it ain't so! If the GH2 is really that cheap I just took it in the .... And didn't even get dinner and a movie after buying one today!
Unfortunately it's so. :-(
Curious80 may not be looking in the right places. The GH2 released at $1400+ for the body only. We're (I'm) only talking about bodies here not kits tho. If you hunt around and monitor local and foreign sites you can find the GH2 (new body only) for like $550 (+ you country's tax) by the time it arrives on your doorstep. Very typical low price is $625 ~ $650. If you go used mint (less than 2,000 shots) you can get it for $450 to $550. It is kinda a lot of work tho. So what's your time worth? For most it will be easier just to pay the $650 (+ taxes) and not have to do the leg-work. I know these prices are right because as you may have noticed from a few of my threads, I've been monitoring such sites and am looking for a new camera both for myself and for the GF. But I'm retired and have all the time I want to do whatever.
The GH1 is certainly $210 right now (new body only) but it's the same for used too - go figure. New GH1's are getting a little scarce these days but I still see 3 or 4 a month. And actually they may be going back up. The last one I saw went for $250.
In the end tho I'm with dswiger when it comes to gear above the level of µ4/3. Used (barely used!) is probably best! And I feel especially so for lenses!
Bifurcator wrote:
Unfortunately it's so. :-(
Curious80 may not be looking in the right places. The GH2 released at $1400+ for the body only. We're (I'm) only talking about bodies here not kits tho. If you hunt around and monitor local and foreign sites you can find the GH2 (new body only) for like $550 (+ you country's tax) by the time it arrives on your doorstep. Very typical low price is $625 ~ $650. If you go used mint (less than 2,000 shots) you can get it for $450 to $550. It is kinda a lot of work tho. So what's your time worth? For most it will be easier just to pay the $650 (+ taxes) and not have to do the leg-work. I know these prices are right because as you may have noticed from a few of my threads, I've been monitoring such sites and am looking for a new camera both for myself and for the GF. But I'm retired and have all the time I want to do whatever.
The GH1 is certainly $210 right now (new body only) but it's the same for used too - go figure. New GH1's are getting a little scarce these days but I still see 3 or 4 a month. And actually they may be going back up. The last one I saw went for $250.
In the end tho I'm with dswiger when it comes to gear above the level of µ4/3. Used (barely used!) is probably best! And I feel especially so for lenses! ...Show more →
I am sorry but your numbers are way off. GH2 was never ever $1400 body only. If you don't believe me then here is a link to the original GH2 announcement from panasonic. It was $899.95 body only when released.
k, Gee, NewZealanders and Japanese were ripped off big time then.
Please notice that less than one month later they reduced the prices - to near the level you're talking about. I kinda thought it was less than that too BTW before I just looked. I was thinking the body only was announced at $1200+ <shrug>
Also who said anything about "reputed online dealers"? I sure didn't! That's where you have to pay for their rent, and for their car payments, and for their kid's collage education. So of course a "reputed online dealer" won't be selling it cheap!
For the GH1 and GH2 bodies I guess these are people splitting up kits and also who get good employee discounts or something like that. Maybe Panasonic factory workers?
For GH1 there were 5 units a week from the same 3 to 5 different sellers in just the Japan area. For the GH2 there's less volume moving and I haven't really taken the time to notice what the sellers screen names are - in Japan.
pingflood wrote:
The thing is, the quality products often are not more expensive and in fact CHEAPER over time. Just take something as simple as paintbrushes (I am renovating a 64 year old house, in case you are wondering...). I can get a cheap crap brush for 10 SEK. It does a mediocre job (dropping bristles constantly, and leaving highly visible streaks) and might last for two rounds of painting trim before it is in bad enough shape that I can't use it. OR, I can get a really nice brush for 80 SEK. It gives an excellent result, makes everything faster and easier, and will last years if you wash it after using it. In the long run, the more expensive brush is far cheaper to own, and gives much more pleasure to use.
Same goes for clothing and such. You can buy a pair of winter boots for 150SEK on sale and be lucky to have them last a season before falling apart. Or you can buy a pair for 800SEK and they will be fine for many years, and are far nicer to use. ...Show more →
That's true. One example I have is my mother-in-law who would never stump up the cash for a quality lounge suite and say don't be stupid I can't afford $3K say, but everytime we visited her it seemed liked she had repalced the rubbish she had just bought. She bout 5 lounge suites at around $1K each in 10 years. Meanwhile we still have our 18 yo leather lounge and it looks great.
Few people are prepared to pay for quality and it's a sad fact much of the electronics today is really crap quality. Pioneer abandoned the high end plasma TV market as it couldn't compete with the cut price rubbish from competitors. It was interested in getting into the low end market at all. Luckily for us cameras seem very well made and would last a hell of a long time and maybe need a shutter replacement at worst.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Look up the price of a new Nikon F2 in real dollars in 1973.
The biggest issue now is not price, but the depreciation curve, which wasn't nearly as pronounced in the film era.
I don't know about the F2 but I bought an F4 in 1995 for about $1300. The F4 was Nikon's top-of-the-line, most expensive camera at the time. I don't know the exact inflation rate since then but I'd guess $1,300 then is about $2,500 now. Which is less than a third of the cost of Nikon's current top-of-the-line, most expensive digital camera, the D3x. Even if inflation converts $1,300 then to $4,000 now the D3x is still twice the adjusted cost of the F4.
campyone wrote:
I don't know about the F2 but I bought an F4 in 1995 for about $1300. The F4 was Nikon's top-of-the-line, most expensive camera at the time. I don't know the exact inflation rate since then but I'd guess $1,300 then is about $2,500 now. Which is less than a third of the cost of Nikon's current top-of-the-line, most expensive digital camera, the D3x. Even if inflation converts $1,300 then to $4,000 now the D3x is still twice the adjusted cost of the F4.
I worked in photo retail in the early to mid 90s and remember how outrageously expensive the F4 and Canon EOS-1 were compared to 'average' cameras of the time. IIRC the F4 with vertical grip in Canada was over $2500 and Canon's 1 series were typically in the $2000 range.
But as good as those cameras were for 35mm, they couldn't really touch medium, let alone large format. Digital changed that dramatically, and while the D3X or Canon 1Ds are expensive, they essentially replaced medium format for a lot of applications. How many wedding photographers still use MF? In comparison to a MF kit, the top end Nikons and Canons are reasonably priced, and I think that was the intention from both manufacturers.
Back in the film days Nikon, Canon, etc., never had to account for any of the R&D now required for digital. Even if Nikon doesn't fab their own sensors, they're still designing specifications and paying someone else to produce them. And what about Canon and Sony who do fab their own sensors? That's huge coin and is so rapidly changing compared to photographic developments 20-30 years ago that the return on the investment must be much faster. That's achieved either through huge volume, or at high prices for low volume equipment. At least for cameras like the D3X, D4, 1D series, I think the prices reflect the comparatively low demand for these specialized products. As the lower end continues to improve to the point where the features in higher end cameras really do make them niche, even to 'pros,' I wouldn't be surprised to see prices for niche gear continue to increase.
campyone wrote:
I don't know about the F2 but I bought an F4 in 1995 for about $1300. The F4 was Nikon's top-of-the-line, most expensive camera at the time. I don't know the exact inflation rate since then but I'd guess $1,300 then is about $2,500 now. Which is less than a third of the cost of Nikon's current top-of-the-line, most expensive digital camera, the D3x. Even if inflation converts $1,300 then to $4,000 now the D3x is still twice the adjusted cost of the F4.
Apples/oranges.
The cost of film cameras doesn't include the cost of film. Film cameras are pretty much useless for taking pictures without the film, not so digital cameras.
The output quality of digital cameras runs circles around comparable-format film cameras.
Factor in the cost of consumables for equivalent output quality and the D3x is a bargain.
Vendors exploit, and also rely on, what you might call "temporal segmentation" of the market They charge a lot up front because people like "latest and greatest stuff" and are willing to pay to have it. In this way, vendors cover their R&D costs, and can also better justify future R&D investments. If people are willing to pay a premium for "latest and greatest" why *wouldn't* a vendor accommodate them?
