Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2012, 2:09 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

good post.

While it may seem easy to dismiss someone saying something is overpriced as just them expressing frustration over not being able to afford it I think it is unfair to make this assumption.

Often times I think people are complaining that they feel the (to use your words)
Quote:
compromise between optical excellence, utility, convenience, size and weight, price, image quality, etc.
could have been different from what the manufacturer decided upon. Often times people have several features that they don't care about that the manufacturer has included resulting in increased price, those people may exclaim the camera is overpriced and those being honest will say it is overpriced <i>for what they want to do with it.</i> Sometimes it may not be actual features but instead materials, I find plastic lens barrels to be just fine but some people may feel that having a metal barrel at an increased cost is worth it and hence may consider something like the Olympus 75mm f1.8 MFT lens to be priced right.

So really it isn't always a question of can I afford it? but more a question of do I find it to be a good value at the price being asked and if not then it is overpriced.

On the RX1 since it was brought up twice: I personally applaud Sony for it. I think it is a step away from the upgrade every few years path. If you think of it as a P&S camera and compare it today's P&S cameras it is hugely overpriced. But if you think of it as a future proof P&S and compare it to what you think based upon the past 20+ years of consumer digital cameras will be the quality of a P&S 20 years it seems about right. I know that was convoluted so let me try coming at it from a different standpoint. If you buy the RX1 today you can probably use it for the next 10 maybe even 20years before the image quality will be behind P&S cameras. Beautiful Zeiss glass still commands big money after decades because it is still very good glass compared to today's modern glass. The sensor in the RX1 will produce beautiful images still years from now.

It makes sense for people who want and are willing to pay for the best and who will use it for years. It makes sense for a news photog who wants a great little camera ready when they need it.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 2:44 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Steve40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 187
Default

Well there was a time, when for the price of todays P&S you could buy the best there was. Please I need no reminders, that this isn't that day. I really wish it were, and cameras are not the only reason.

But there seems to be a problem - no real competition. I think truth were known. That the camera companies like the Oil Cartel, have a common market. One they all share in the profits from. Otherwise there would be real price competition, but there is not - now give me a better explanation.

Remember also! that 99.9% of the cameras, are made by Japanese companies. Maybe we did not win WWll after all.
__________________
Steve Owen.
http://steveslandscapes.50webs.com.
Cameras: Canon G12, and A1200. Sony DSC-H90. Fuji HS35EXR.
"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words".
Steve40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 3:39 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
The UK-US price difference is very disconcerting.

20% is just VAT of course, US prices are quoted without sales tax.

Also there are often EU import duties on cameras that can do video, which is most of them nowadays, which accounts for an extra 15% or so.

Finally in the EU they have to provide a 2-year warrantee which is probably worth another 10%.

Transport and distribution costs are generally higher in the UK too. All in all it probably comes to explaining most of the difference.
I was last in the UK in the 1980's. I was astounded at the price differential of the same consumer products between what it cost in the UK vs Canada or the USA.

I recall thinking at the time. Some middleman is making a killing off the UK consumer.

That was a long time ago. Perhaps things have changed.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 4:15 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

Simon;
I think most of the difference lies in the standards used for TV and video, vs. the open endedness of cameras. TV and video equipment are made to meet fixed standards, and once the manufacturing technology has matured enough, the low-end makers jump in.
Cameras are continually changing, so the above does not apply to them. If there was a consensus on (for example,) megapixels, LCD resolution, and lens mounts, you would then begin to see some considerable price drops.
Prior to digital, there were a number of SLR makers who made inexpensive SLRs using Minolta or Pentax mounts. They were decent cameras, and able to be made cheaply, because the technology was mature, and the camera body was basically a box to hold film and a lens. Each DSLR line is pretty much unique, and the quantities involved aren't high enough to support low end copies.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 5:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP View Post
Maybe the next model will have interchangeable lenses.
and becomes a normal FF mirrorless camera.
What's a NORMAL FF mirrorless camera?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 5:41 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Mercedes? Ferraris? Bentleys? Those are not overpriced. They're expensive, but they represent a good value.

In the relm of electronics, Bang & Olufsen isn't overpriced, but Bose is.

In the relm of cameras, the Leica M9 may be overpriced, but the Sony RX1 definitely is. The Leica brings with it a certain status, sort of electronic bling you wear around your neck. The Sony costs $2799 so you can stick it in your pocket; where's the bling value of that? That's why iPhone users always have them in their hands; so they can show them off. Samsung and Nokia users keep theirs in their pockets because there's no bling value.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 10:01 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

TCav - the bling is right there on the front Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* and the rest of the bling is one of those "in the know" bling, i.e. those that are "in the know" know that it has the latest full frame sensor from arguably the best sensor maker in the market. Leica is old money, this is new money who scoffs at the old for not knowing better. (Sony maybe you want to hire me?)

__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2012, 9:39 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
TCav - the bling is right there on the front Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* and the rest of the bling is one of those "in the know" bling, i.e. those that are "in the know" know that it has the latest full frame sensor from arguably the best sensor maker in the market. Leica is old money, this is new money who scoffs at the old for not knowing better. (Sony maybe you want to hire me?)
But if it's in your pocket, it's not bling.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2012, 9:45 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

If you mount the $180 lens hood, then my guess is that it won't fit in your pocket anymore, but without a doubt, $180 for the lens hood is overpriced.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2012, 12:42 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
But if it's in your pocket, it's not bling.
why would this be in your pocket and a Leica not be in your pocket?

I think the type of person who hangs a camera name plate around their neck for bling appeal would hang this one around their neck too.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:05 PM.