chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Dexter75 wrote: raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
Dexter75 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.
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days.
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
wow!!! i did not get the memo...are you the official boss or un-official boss of the forums?
i think the whole point of the discussion is that some folks seem not bothered to pay extra for something they do not want while some folks are indeed bothered to pay for something they do not want. i'm not aware of a 'master' stills only camera...are you? therefor i'm guessing then your term "master camera" means a body with high end stills and high end video capabilities. why did we stop using the catchy, new, and fresh term "hybrid camera"?
i think the evidence suggests that some folks indeed want a high end stills camera but prefer not to lay out large sums of money for a high end stills camera which includes an added premium for it's high end video capabilities.
seems like the discussion is going in going in circles don't it?
I'm debating this "high premium" for video features you bring up. I've asked before...but maybe you have the answer...how much of the price of the A74 is because of this "high premium" video features? Do you know...or are you just guessing? Because these "high end premium" features are in phones that can be bought for $1,000.
I know for sure economies of scale reduce cost which typically reduces consumer prices. So incorporating video into cameras opens up a larger consumer base which allows ore sales of the camera which in turn allows the manufacturer to sell at a lower rice. This is fact. I'd like to see you facts on the extra costs for adding video to cameras. I've read on here that the A74 would be a $1,500 camera without video...I call this BS as I believe video increases a camera cost very little, but opens up the potential market greatly.
would you lay down $6500 for a high end video centric smart phone?
i wonder if cell phone manufacturers figured (market analysis) that their $35 (manufacturing cost) cell phone will sell well enough at $1000 but not so much at $6500?
when manufactures add 'goodies, if you will' to their products it also allows them charge for those goodies.
it most certainly does open up an extremely large market to the manufactures whom now add 'goodies' to their product and can now double dip on every single one of their customers.
chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Dexter75 wrote: raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
Dexter75 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.
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days.
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
wow!!! i did not get the memo...are you the official boss or un-official boss of the forums?
i think the whole point of the discussion is that some folks seem not bothered to pay extra for something they do not want while some folks are indeed bothered to pay for something they do not want. i'm not aware of a 'master' stills only camera...are you? therefor i'm guessing then your term "master camera" means a body with high end stills and high end video capabilities. why did we stop using the catchy, new, and fresh term "hybrid camera"?
i think the evidence suggests that some folks indeed want a high end stills camera but prefer not to lay out large sums of money for a high end stills camera which includes an added premium for it's high end video capabilities.
seems like the discussion is going in going in circles don't it?
I'm debating this "high premium" for video features you bring up. I've asked before...but maybe you have the answer...how much of the price of the A74 is because of this "high premium" video features? Do you know...or are you just guessing? Because these "high end premium" features are in phones that can be bought for $1,000.
I know for sure economies of scale reduce cost which typically reduces consumer prices. So incorporating video into cameras opens up a larger consumer base which allows ore sales of the camera which in turn allows the manufacturer to sell at a lower rice. This is fact. I'd like to see you facts on the extra costs for adding video to cameras. I've read on here that the A74 would be a $1,500 camera without video...I call this BS as I believe video increases a camera cost very little, but opens up the potential market greatly.
would you lay down $6500 for a high end video centric smart phone?
i wonder if cell phone manufacturers figured (market analysis) that their $35 (manufacturing cost) cell phone will sell well enough at $1000 but not so much at $6500?
chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Dexter75 wrote: raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
Dexter75 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.
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days.
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
wow!!! i did not get the memo...are you the official boss or un-official boss of the forums?
i think the whole point of the discussion is that some folks seem not bothered to pay extra for something they do not want while some folks are indeed bothered to pay for something they do not want. i'm not aware of a 'master' stills only camera...are you? therefor i'm guessing then your term "master camera" means a body with high end stills and high end video capabilities. why did we stop using the catchy, new, and fresh term "hybrid camera"?
i think the evidence suggests that some folks indeed want a high end stills camera but prefer not to lay out large sums of money for a high end stills camera which includes an added premium for it's high end video capabilities.
seems like the discussion is going in going in circles don't it?
I'm debating this "high premium" for video features you bring up. I've asked before...but maybe you have the answer...how much of the price of the A74 is because of this "high premium" video features? Do you know...or are you just guessing? Because these "high end premium" features are in phones that can be bought for $1,000.
I know for sure economies of scale reduce cost which typically reduces consumer prices. So incorporating video into cameras opens up a larger consumer base which allows ore sales of the camera which in turn allows the manufacturer to sell at a lower rice. This is fact. I'd like to see you facts on the extra costs for adding video to cameras. I've read on here that the A74 would be a $1,500 camera without video...I call this BS as I believe video increases a camera cost very little, but opens up the potential market greatly.
would you lay down $6500 for a high end video centric smart phone?
i wonder if cell phone manufacturers figured (market analysis that their $35 (manufacturing cost) cell phone will sell well enough at $1000 but not so much at $6500?
chez wrote: Paul_100A wrote: chez wrote: Dexter75 wrote: raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
Dexter75 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.
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days.
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
wow!!! i did not get the memo...are you the official boss or un-official boss of the forums?
i think the whole point of the discussion is that some folks seem not bothered to pay extra for something they do not want while some folks are indeed bothered to pay for something they do not want. i'm not aware of a 'master' stills only camera...are you? therefor i'm guessing then your term "master camera" means a body with high end stills and high end video capabilities. why did we stop using the catchy, new, and fresh term "hybrid camera"?
i think the evidence suggests that some folks indeed want a high end stills camera but prefer not to lay out large sums of money for a high end stills camera which includes an added premium for it's high end video capabilities.
seems like the discussion is going in going in circles don't it?
I'm debating this "high premium" for video features you bring up. I've asked before...but maybe you have the answer...how much of the price of the A74 is because of this "high premium" video features? Do you know...or are you just guessing? Because these "high end premium" features are in phones that can be bought for $1,000.
I know for sure economies of scale reduce cost which typically reduces consumer prices. So incorporating video into cameras opens up a larger consumer base which allows ore sales of the camera which in turn allows the manufacturer to sell at a lower rice. This is fact. I'd like to see you facts on the extra costs for adding video to cameras. I've read on here that the A74 would be a $1,500 camera without video...I call this BS as I believe video increases a camera cost very little, but opens up the potential market greatly.
would you lay down $6500 for a high end video centric smart phone?
i wonder if cell phone manufacturers figured (market analysis, out that their $35 (manufacturing cost) cell phone will sell well enough at $1000 but not so much at $6500?
Nov 02, 2021 at 09:56 AM
Previous versions of Paul_100A's message #15755393 « Pre-order: Sony Alpha a7 IV Mirrorless »
