One common death spiral that many would have seen, is a failing store where they are losing customers, thus to continue to break even or turn a profit, they up the pricing for their remaining customers, which in turn drives more away, causing them to further increase prices.
Overall, cameras are too expensive, especially at the entry level. They are also artificially restricted to the point where it is turning away otherwise good customers by selling them a bad first experience. Try presenting that to a first time camera buyer, and see how fast they return the camera to the store and give up on photography.
When so many problems of their own making working against them, it is no wonder why camera makers are losing so much business. They are driving away existing customers, and warding off new customers. Just a thought I just checked. Is this the exception that proves the rule? You got the obvious right, but with no detail it has no value.
The thing is, if the announced R3 is as powerful as Canon advertises, sales of the 1dx3 will have no meaning only 16 months after its release. You can add inflation or what ever you want, people have always speculated on the cost of making a new digital camera in a way justifying the cost I have no clue why people do that.
The first 5D back in showed they know nothing about it considering the incredible price drop for a full frame at the time, and now you just demonstrated that Canon can come out with an expensive camera in a very tough segment sell it cheaper for half the cycle time during what people assume again is an expensive shift to mirrorless for manufacturers. Personally I like to think cameras are overpriced and we know literally nothing about real manufacturer's cost.
It's pretty simple, we don't need to know because we will never really know. In a nutshell - No. It's the photographers or wanna be photographers who want a camera with every conceivable bell and whistle on it to go everything for them. So the manufactures are obliging and charging us for it. There are plenty of cameras out there today including the DSLR's for great bargains, but people want something new each year that makes them have to do less and less, so they can't brag on social media forums about their 1.
Or that their new 50 megapixel camera is light years ahead of the 45 mp camera they replaced. Oh and yours truly included. An item is "too expensive" when it can't be sold at the offered price in the quantities made available. As long as people are standing in line for a camera, and all that are manufactured are quickly sold, it is objectively not "too expensive. Very true, I think the main issue is, the internet has become a platform for people who complain about things to gather together namely on gear forums I use Fujifilm and a quick scroll through pretty much any article on the rumour site you will find people who expect an X-T4, but packaged inside an X-E4 with a price of an X-A series.
Not sure about this. All a sudden Canon added the video feature to the 5D2. I had never heard of anyone expecting turning a dslr into a video camera. Now since they started the trend, may be a few were hoping to get to 8k and Canon jumped on the idea, but I can guaranty you no one asked for an overheating product which Canon had absolutely no issue putting on the market despite absolutely knowing the issue.
Go and check out any gear related forum, see what people are demanding. The release of the Fujifilm X-E4 and X-S10 are a prime example of a company releasing cameras at the more budget range, yet potential customers which is questionable anyway do nothing but bemoan the fact these cameras are missing all the specs that make the pro line what it is. When you pose the question to them about accepting a price increase to cover these additions, they scoff and demand the price be actually cheaper.
The issue is, sometimes greed can get in the way of profits. Now suppose that nets you 10 camera sales per year, that would seem like the right price. The only time an overly high price is right in the eyes of a manufacturer, is when the price maximizes profits within the production capacity of the company, e. Manufacturers scale production to demand, thus they will not produce items at a faster rate than can be sold with the exception of logistics errors , they simply cater to the market size that their pricing gets them.
The only other major scenario that they face is when demand overwhelms production, e. Nvidia and AMD are at max output, but everything instantly sells.
For any company, no one wants to blame their own actions, as no one likes to feel wrong or that they made the wrong choice, thus it can often be easier to blame other factors rather than greed. The problem that camera makers are facing, is a shrinking market,they clearly have the capacity to easily handle 10 times the demand, but the demand doesn't exist because they have driven off existing customers while scaring away any new customers who may have been interested.
They could lowered prices, and fixed their entry level line of cameras to not be so artificially crippled while costing so much, so that they bring in more new people into the market. Your reason for the lack of demand is faulty. Demand hasn't fallen because prices drove away customers. Demand has fallen because many potential customers' camera expectations are being met by the device they already own for other purposes. Do you really believe a company like Canon or Sony hasn't figured out basic manufacturing and marketing strategy?
The needs being met by current smartphones are effectively needs that people used to satisfy by getting a point and shoot camera which pretty much killed the point and shoot market. Many people who entered the realm of investing photography equipment.
Virtually no one makes a jump directly into high end super expensive gear unless they own a few oil companies to fund the slightest spark of interest. For most people, they start off with a much smaller investment, and invest more as their interest grows. Now imagine if cheaper cars stopped existing and virtually everyone at best used bikes. Would society look different? 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? Electronically and digitally - well, it's not quite so clear. It's tempting to say that your data is going to be safer on a more expensive camera, except that there's really no reason to think so any more. The only way in which more expensive cameras will be safer is if they specify storage media that has a higher reliability rating.
They can also offer workflows that are so locked-down that there is little chance of losing data by accident.
But, mostly, these are precautions that you can take using cheap cameras as well. It's also true to say that more expensive cameras will probably have more thoroughly tested software that almost never crashes or gives unexpected results. On-board signal processing may be more sophisticated and capable as well. In a sense, the new crop of "raw" cameras outsource the onboard digital processing to external software. There's nothing wrong with this - it's just a different approach.
Remember that it's very expensive to keep full-time specialist developers employed, and the more you test your software, the longer they have to sit there, drawing their salaries, until the product finally ships and long after, one would hope!
There is one other way to look at this: let's say you have a tendency to lose or break cameras. Wouldn't you be better off losing or breaking a camera that was a tenth of the price of a more expensive one that you could lose as well and which was perhaps more likely to be stolen?
The whole reason we're having this discussion is that "you get what you pay for" isn't necessarily true any more. You have to look at multiple factors. You can't say one camera is "better" than another one unless you take all the relevant factors into account. But it's a fantastic choice to have! Great pictures are more accesible than they've ever been, and if you want the sort of engineering they build aircraft with, you can have that as well if you're prepared to pay for it.
Read Why are products delivered late? Tags: Business. RedShark is a multiplatform online publication for anyone with an interest in moving image technology and craft. With over 50 contributors worldwide, full-time developers, editorial, sales and marketing staff, it is the go-to site for informed opinion and know-how for the quickly changing video, film and content creation industries.
Why are some cameras so expensive while others are so cheap? Related Articles Five lame excuses companies give for not paying invoices on time Want to make a feature film? This is how much money you will really need Sky Glass: The future of television? How to give the best advice to newcomers Atomos appoints a new CEO. Popular Quantum Computing just got desktop sized. Solid-state batteries will change everything.
Mars helicopter: Ingenuity continues to break records. Signup to RedShark Subscribe Here! About Redshark RedShark is a multiplatform online publication for anyone with an interest in moving image technology and craft. Signup on Social. Keep in mind the fact that while DSLR cameras are expensive, they do range greatly when it comes to price.
An entry-level DSLR camera can cost several hundred dollars, but a much larger one with more features can easily run someone several thousand. While DSLR cameras can be expensive, you can find lower-priced ones that still give you the quality image that you want. In fact, an entry-level DSLR camera could be what is best for you or a simple smartphone camera might be all you need on your photography journey. Consider these things and you will have a good idea of the type of camera you need for any situation.
The first thing you should consider is what you plan to use your camera for. If you prefer taking pictures of landscapes and portraits, then you may need a camera that is better suited at taking large-scale photos from a distance. On the other hand, if you prefer to take pictures of action or movement, such as street photography, then you need a camera that can quickly capture things in motion and produce a clear image.
Other features to consider include the size and portability. Some people, especially those taking still shots, have all the time in the world to set up their camera to get the perfect shot. How often should I upgrade my camera? There is no set time when you should upgrade your camera. Photography is based on the individual. If you do want to upgrade your camera, make sure to keep in mind what improvements you want to make and specifically look for cameras that give you the higher image quality you want.
If you have the resources, and you want to take photos and not record video, then you should consider starting with an entry level DSLR camera. While there are some cheaper alternatives, DSLR cameras do provide some of the best quality images you can get from a camera. Is a smartphone camera good enough for photography? The latest smartphones provide high-quality images with an impressive number of megapixels. There are limitations to smartphones, but they can provide excellent photos for all sorts of things, such as casual images or social media posts.
Currently you have JavaScript disabled.
0コメント