chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Atlasman2 wrote:
Hitting two markets with one camera increases volume thereby lowering the selling price.
Dexter75 wrote: Paul_100A wrote:
why is the statement "I just shoot stills and I don't want video" still being made and often?
do all video only shooters enjoy to pay extra for a camera body to have highly capable stills capture?
video shooters are paying extra for stills features not wanted or needed
.
No they arent. Thats why the 12 megapixel a7S III is $3,500 and the 33 megapixel a7IV is only $2,500. Sony charges more for their video-centric cameras. Photographers are indeed paying a premium in these hybrid cameras for the video features found in more expensive cameras, not the other way around. Take the video features out of the a7IV and its a $1,500 camera at most. They really need to make a model like that for those of us who dont care about video. This is just one reason Ive been tempted to go MF, especially with the new GFX 50S II at only $3,999.
Yep, niche / low volume implies expensive...general / high volume implies reduced price. Doesn't take a genius to see this.
and your genius opinion on Olympus' low pricing on their niche products was? or is Olympus not a niche product as had been stated so often for so long.
The cost of the sensor is a big part of the total cost of the camera. Smaller amounts of pixels require less horsepower to move around. Sony's APS-c cameras and lenses cost less than their full frame counter parts...surely you must understand this.
ohh I see. the smaller sensor in the camera makes the lenses less expensive too.
OK.
i guess i mistakenly understood 'it' as lower demand for a particular brand of an abundant product (ie. interchangeable lens camera body system) meant the less price manufactures can charge for said products.
also might work for when a like product is in highest of demand and the manufactures are then willing to charge premiums.
i got it all wrong i guess.
chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Atlasman2 wrote:
Hitting two markets with one camera increases volume thereby lowering the selling price.
Dexter75 wrote: Paul_100A wrote:
why is the statement "I just shoot stills and I don't want video" still being made and often?
do all video only shooters enjoy to pay extra for a camera body to have highly capable stills capture?
video shooters are paying extra for stills features not wanted or needed
.
No they arent. Thats why the 12 megapixel a7S III is $3,500 and the 33 megapixel a7IV is only $2,500. Sony charges more for their video-centric cameras. Photographers are indeed paying a premium in these hybrid cameras for the video features found in more expensive cameras, not the other way around. Take the video features out of the a7IV and its a $1,500 camera at most. They really need to make a model like that for those of us who dont care about video. This is just one reason Ive been tempted to go MF, especially with the new GFX 50S II at only $3,999.
Yep, niche / low volume implies expensive...general / high volume implies reduced price. Doesn't take a genius to see this.
and your genius opinion on Olympus' low pricing on their niche products was? or is Olympus not a niche product as had been stated so often for so long.
The cost of the sensor is a big part of the total cost of the camera. Smaller amounts of pixels require less horsepower to move around. Sony's APS-c cameras and lenses cost less than their full frame counter parts...surely you must understand this.
ohh I see. the smaller sensor in the camera makes the lenses less expensive too.
OK,
Nov 02, 2021 at 09:43 AM
Previous versions of Paul_100A's message #15755377 « Pre-order: Sony Alpha a7 IV Mirrorless »
