p.2 #1 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Sigma DP1 and 2 Merrill are sorta dedicated landscape/slow photography equipment and are pretty awesome in that. Wouldnt count that as generic mirrorless.
p.2 #2 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Makten wrote:
Smaller electronics are of course more expensive and difficult to design and manufacture.
That's only true if you're trying to squeeze a lot of processing power into a small space. How small Epic is, would be an example of your point.
The cameras we're talking are not powerful. They have the slowest, cheapest, processors their manufacturers can find. It takes seven or eight hours to boot up a Sony NEX.
Between that and the lack of complex mechanicals like an SLR's mirror assembly, I bet Sony's making almost as much money on the NEX as Apple does on the iPhone (47% margin, FYI).
p.2 #3 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
justruss wrote:
...and ii) these companies aren't pricing against the body so much as the massive initial R&D outlay that goes into creating new systems from scratch...
Red made back their NRE on Epic/Scarlet in just over a year and those cameras probably sold in 1/5000th (or less) the quantity of an NEX or EM-5.
p.2 #4 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Lee Saxon wrote:
...
The cameras we're talking are not powerful. They have the slowest, cheapest, processors their manufacturers can find. It takes seven or eight hours to boot up a Sony NEX.
...
Hmm I wonder whats the basis of your claim. NEX-7 handles 24MP at 10fps which takes a lot of processing power. For example 1DX incorporates dual DIGIC processors to be able to handle such a high data rate. It is certainly beyond the capabilities of any entry-level DSLRs and most mid-level DSLRs.
I am not sure why I am defending NEX-7 considering I don't even like that camera very much :S. But I don't like claims like this which don't seem to be based on facts.
p.2 #5 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Lee Saxon wrote:
Red made back their NRE on Epic/Scarlet in just over a year and those cameras probably sold in 1/5000th (or less) the quantity of an NEX or EM-5.
Yeah, but Red was/is a small, innovative company-- and its cameras have a much, much higher price, with much, much higher priced accessories (that have crazy margins and are basically required for use), and they sell to people/companies with proper budgets. And their cameras replace cameras that cost 3 to 10 x as much.
Different market, different strategy. Not comparable.
p.2 #6 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Lee Saxon wrote:
That's only true if you're trying to squeeze a lot of processing power into a small space. How small Epic is, would be an example of your point.
The cameras we're talking are not powerful. They have the slowest, cheapest, processors their manufacturers can find. It takes seven or eight hours to boot up a Sony NEX.
Between that and the lack of complex mechanicals like an SLR's mirror assembly, I bet Sony's making almost as much money on the NEX as Apple does on the iPhone (47% margin, FYI).
My Sony Nex-7 is quite snappy and fast at 10 fps.. Especially with the new firmware.
It may seem that you are more worried about hatin' on sony than on arguing the actual facts at hand?
p.2 #7 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
What people are willing to pay plus perhaps lower economies of scale (as Canon and Nikon manufacture more SLRs than Panasonic or Sony or Olympus manufacture mirrorless cameras).
The lower end m43 cameras are dirt cheap, cheaper than DSLRs, so maybe the premise is actually wrong.
p.2 #8 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Uncle Mike wrote:
The lower end m43 cameras are dirt cheap, cheaper than DSLRs, so maybe the premise is actually wrong.
this.
low end mirrorless are as good and cheaper than low end dslrs at least the prices I see. the low end canons, nikons, and Pentax cameras are all more expensive than the low end m4/3 and NEX (not sure about others), so I don't really get the question?
p.2 #9 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
What about lenses? I find m4/3 lenses ridiculously costly compared to APSC/FF or even Olympus 4/3 lenses. And I don't believe this has to do with R&D investment or production alone. I think most of these companies are asking too much premium over their APSC/FF counterparts
p.2 #10 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Could you give an example? Keep in mind that the pricier MFT lenses are very strong designs, and need to be compared to equivalently built and well-designed APS-C/FF/FT lenses, not just any old lens.
p.2 #11 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Here is one I can think of where lenses more or less matches image quality and FL. In general if you check even consumer lenses from m4/3 are seriously costlier than APSC/FF counterparts. That's the reason I ended returning back to APSC/FF
Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 vs Olympus 75/18
carstenw wrote:
Could you give an example? Keep in mind that the pricier MFT lenses are very strong designs, and need to be compared to equivalently built and well-designed APS-C/FF/FT lenses, not just any old lens.
p.2 #13 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Sagar wrote:
What about lenses? I find m4/3 lenses ridiculously costly compared to APSC/FF or even Olympus 4/3 lenses. And I don't believe this has to do with R&D investment or production alone. I think most of these companies are asking too much premium over their APSC/FF counterparts
I don't think m43 (or Sony) zooms are any more expensive than the APS-C DSLRs. Looking at high end ones we have:
Panasonic 7-14mm = $900, Canon APS-C 10-22mm = $850 and Nikon DX 12-24=$1100. And by all accounts the panasonic is the best performing of all these (and is also the widest). The
Panasonic 12-35mm = $1100, Canon APS-C 17-55mm = $1100 and Nikon DX 17-55mm=$1400. And again by all accounts the panasonic is the best performing of all these.
So in both cases you get a higher performing lens for equal or low price.
On the consumer side you have:
Olympus 40-150mm = $200, Canon 55-250mm = $300, Nikno 55-200mm = $270.
Panasonic 14-140mm = $600, Canon 18-200mm = $700, Nikon 18-200=$850
Panasonic 100-300mm = $500, and there is really no equivalent in the APS-C world for that.
I think primes might be a bit on the higher side though in general be sure to do an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing the 75mm 1.8 to a 20 year old design. A more fair comparison would be to compare it to a more modern Nikon 85mm 1.8 at $500, and then factor in the fact that it is a metal lens with high build quality compared to the plastic Nikon and you are not far off in price.
p.2 #14 · why are mirrorless compacts so much more expensive than DSLRs? shouldn't they be cheaper?
Sagar wrote:
Here is one I can think of where lenses more or less matches image quality and FL. In general if you check even consumer lenses from m4/3 are seriously costlier than APSC/FF counterparts. That's the reason I ended returning back to APSC/FF
Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 vs Olympus 75/18
Okay, you are trying to match specs rather than build quality. It doesn't really work. The MFT platform has different parameters and if you want small DoF, don't buy one. The 75/1.8 is heads and shoulders better than either 85/1.8 in any other way though, especially boke. The Nikkor/Canon versions are budget lenses, the Olympus lens is premium.
Note: I don't know how good the new 85/1.8G AF-S is yet.
