Now, they want you to see your camera purchase as an aspirational lifestyle choice. The mere fact that it costs more than other cameras makes it feel more desirable to many consumers. If you feel that it is worth more than it is! Will it make you a better photographer? Will it take better photos than less expensive cameras? All that really matters is how you feel about your purchase. The more you pay, the better you feel.
As old as these photographic tools are, they remain very capable. Just one tiny error can render the lens completely unusable. The parts in these precision devices must be milled and ground to exact measurements, with no deviation at all to speak of. And then those parts must be assembled just perfectly to create a precision lens. As you might expect, that level of precision requires highly skilled workers and expensive equipment.
Update from Carol: Thanks for your explanation, Rick. It does make sense. How many non-rich people would own those sports cars? Would it be the same number we see today if the average person grew up not driving because there were no affordable cars where they could develop an interest in driving on?
Currently there are no good value options for someone who wants to take more control over the photo capture process. Smartphone cameras are largely focused on full auto use, where the manual controls are extremely limited effectively exposure comp , and any further manual control often means a loss of the computational photography aspects which is what they rely on to make those tiny sensors more usable.
Thus often it will be a worse experience for smartphone users, as they will have to deal with clunky control and only have control over shutter speed and ISO, while giving up the computational aspect of the image pipeline. If those users decide to make their entry into the dedicated camera market in the form of an entry level DSLR or other ILC camera, then chancess are they may end up with a bad experience due to how artificially crippled those cameras are.
For example, disabling lens calibration on a class of camera that is more prone to focusing issues due to looser tolerances and less in-depth QA compared to a high end pro camera. For others, they simply will be unable to justify such a large investment as their first step, thus they will make due with their smartphone. This is especially the case when outside of the photography community where we are all already deeply interested and use or see results from a wide range of equipment.
To them, in most cases the entry level is a mystery, pair that with poor quality control and artificial crippling to prevent the users from working around the QC issues, and you drive away new people. Simply put, there are more push factors than pull factors.
Consider this, how many people here have a NAS for backing up their photos and other important files. How many started off with lower cost bay NAS setup, because of some interest in backing up their data? Now how many have a storage setup like the one in the attached photo in their house?
How many photographers here would have attempted entering the target market for a NAS if the entry level had you going with a setup like this in your house. In photography, many people eventually reach a steady state where they have done most of their major investments, and their spending will be an occasional camera body purchase, or some smaller accessory every couple years. Such a setup cannot sustain a market of releasing new cameras and equipment every year. They need to attract new people, the problem is they lost sight of bringing in new consumers.
Most people don't take pictures for the sake of taking pictures; most people only want to record the other things they're doing. Advanced cameras were used mainly by people who valued photography for the sake of photography Prior to the late 80s, the market for advanced cameras was extremely small. But until a person really learned the fundamentals and practice of exposure and focus and changing lenses, getting good results with advanced cameras was close to zero. The vast majority of people weren't willing to do that just to record their other activities.
That changed abruptly in the late 80s with computer-controlled exposure. I'd point to the Canon AE-1 for starting the trend. Computer-controlled exposure and then automatic focusing made good pictures more likely from advanced cameras than from simple cameras even in the hands of indifferent camera owners.
That resulted in a huge SLR market bubble of people buying advanced cameras. That market bubble lasted until cell phone cameras--which people already wanted for their other social purposes--became equally capable of providing good pictures with minimal knowledge and effort.
The bubble lasted so long that the industry forgot it was a bubble. Right now, the advanced camera market is just about where it was before cameras got computer control. People who never really wanted more than a way to record their other activities have found a more convenient and cheaper way.
Advanced cameras are once again valued mainly by people for whom the photography itself is their activity. Owning an R5 is expensive right now, but in 5 years when the Mk2 comes out, the R5 will be cheaper. Most of the time when people moan about the cost of stuff, it's because they want the latest and they want it now.
For the record, I'm a working pro and still shooting on my 5D Mk3 cameras. It may be a year until I maybe upgrade to an R5 - when they've hopefully dropped in price. And 1K more than competition too. Camera gear has always been expensive. They are complex machines that are difficult to manufacture and have tight tolerances.
I would argue that now you can get more camera with less money than ever before. I look at the reason for cost of modern cameras like the same reason cars cost more these days too minus the unpredictable economic variables. More and more features some government required additions are being crammed into cars like backup cameras, computers to manage fuel efficiency, TPMS sensors, More computers,GPS, Bluetooth, and I think I forgot to say computers.
It greatly increases the cost of the product when you add that much stuff. Cameras too. They are more and more becoming video cameras with great still capabilities. It just jacks up the cost because the one camera can do more than one thing. They can shoot 4k video at high frame rates for slow mo jazz, gps, microphone input, audio level management software, touch screens that flip out and twist every which way, built in levels for leveling the camera, and a whole host of other neat nice to have features.
Do cars and cameras NEED those feature to do their core job well? No they don't but consumers want it so companies give it whether it be half assed or whole assed to consumers and consumers pay for it. Home Topics Gear. Are Cameras Becoming Too Expensive? Posted In:. Here's What You Should Upgrade. Here Are My Top Premium Photography Tutorials Check out the Fstoppers Store for in-depth tutorials from some of the best instructors in the business.
Log in or register to post comments. A pro may justify these exotica but a hobbyist is really rationalizing a "want". The gear hound with a thin wallet will always be with us. To paraphrase Jesus. Kurt Hummel Indy Thomas - July 11, Yes you do need a mm F4 if you want to shoot wildlife without disturbing them or putting yourself into an unsafe position with them. Me thinks you are exaggerating this issue somewhat. Your mm F4 is a fun toy, not a kidney. Brandon Hopkins Indy Thomas - July 13, He said you need it "if you want to shoot wildlife" so his comment was accurate.
I only need food and shelter if my objective is to keep my body alive. I only need a job if my objective is to earn money.
0コメント