millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Assuming that quality/features always is going to have a linear relationship with cost is a fallacy of reasoning, especially when it comes to consumer goods.
Price it a totally independent variable, at times bearing a relationship to performance, and other times being simply what the market will yield.
Look at Leica for example. Do they make a nice product ? Yeah, they do, but does the price levels in any way correlate to absolute scales of performance ? Not even close.
You can pay 2-3 times more money and not get any measurable performance improvement for that extra cost. But; its a Leica and people will pay it.
Its a free market and producers can set whatever price they want. I can splatter some point onto a $5 white t-shirt, call it a designer good, and say its $60.
Olympus can introduce a new camera, with features they think will appeal to a lot of photographers, and ask $1999 for it.
Is it $400 "better" than say a Fuji XT2 ? How can anyone really answer that as an absolute, all encompassing answer ?
If someone wants to have a set priced scale, with an absolute maximum they are wiling to pay based on sensor size, more power to them. Maybe for a given individual they won't pay over XX dollars for APS-C or smaller, and XX +500 for FF, and heck, XX +2000 for medium format, but so what ? That is their choice and they are free to spend, or not spend their money, just like the rest of us.
I paid several thousand dollars for a bicvcle. Plenty of people probably would say no, they are not spending more for a bike than a lot of used cars cost, but to each his own.
Buy the EM1.2 or don't buy it, end of story, what other options are there in the end ? One can of course hold off buying it and maybe the price will decline, but in the end its either a camera you end up buying, or not buying.
There is no middle ground. There is no option to offer $1700 to Olympus and have them give you a camera with 80% of the features, or pay $2300 and have it upgraded to APS-C.
You can buy it and whine that its too expensive, or that you don't feel it was a great value, but in the end, you bought it. That is all that really counts at the end of the day.
I don't really understand what it is about cameras that makes people feel they are any different than any other consumer good, where we think we can have a debate on the price and its magically going to change anything, or that we are 'owed' a certain product at a certain price.
Its like saying I've driven Honda's for 15 yeas and they better price their latest sports coupe at a price I find acceptable because they owe it to me to have that car to drive.
There is this odd mentality where some photographers think that past purchases mean the company should be expected to introduce future products that appeal to ones' specific needs/wants and at a given price.
What is it about camera's, or photography, that reflects that mentality in so many individuals ?
They are consumer electronics products, but we have a far different attachment to them that other products we buy. I guess its because we see them as tools used for our means of self-expression and to a large degree, our identity ?
Its not just a $xx electronics purchase, its what defines us. When I bought my latest TV or blu-ray etc, I was just a consumer. When I bought my camera I suddenly became a photographer, and as such, redefined myself, how I view myself, how I want others to see me. I'm an artist now.... I produce photographs while everyone else takes pictures. I grew out my beard maybe.... I don't see garbage in an alley anymore, I see "found art" etc etc.
I guess given how emotionally invested in our camera's non-rational thinking with regards to brand names, pricing etc is to be expected.
|
