Camera Priced Right

[wilbur_wong]

I have noted that many camera bodies and lenses get complaints from certain

(want to be) buyers that they are over priced.

 

Whether any photographic item is affordable to me is a decision which involves

whether I feel the merits and assets of the individual item will be worth my

expenditure in dollars.

 

I personally feel that the pricing of todays cameras are as reasonable as at

any other time during the last many decades. In the 60's I bought a brand new

car for $2,600, and I bought a SLR with 3 fixed lenses for $1000.

 

This year I bought a 5d, two "L" lenses, and a 70-300 "DO" for $5500. That is

less percentage wise than the change of the consumer price index for which my

budget would be around $6100 compared to the value in the 60's. As for the

prices for cars. . . . .

 

How do you feel about the current pricing of Canon cameras and lenses?

[bob_osullivan]

I agree with your math Wilbur. I think the main reason for the increase in complaints about price is the increase in amateurs buying pro/semi pro level equipment. I'm sure back in the 60's only serious photogs and pros bought that stuff. These days, everyone is a photographer. And so many people are laying down big dollars for equipment that does not generate revenue for them. Also, I think many "pro-sumers" buy stuff beyond thier needs. I've certainly fallen into that trap a bit. Lastly, I think the marketing minds these days are much more sophisticated than in decades past. I say more power too them. They build a fine product, market it well and deserve thier just rewards. It's up to us to exercise self control and restraint. "Caveate Emptor" ( I know I prbably spelled that wrong)

[stoatsngroats]

I agree with Bob, I really want a 70-200 2.8, but I can't afford one! I'm on a low budget because photography is one of a couple of hobbys I have and have to work it round a family (same as many on here, I know!) To spend $5000 + on camera equipment is definatley a no-no, and probably always will be!

[hjoseph7]

"I think the main reason for the increase in complaints about price is the increase in amateurs buying pro/semi pro level equipment"

 

Since when where photographers salaries so huge that they could afford $5000+ lenses ? Most photographers were scraping by just like your average Joe in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. It is true that more amateurs are getting into Pro equipment these days, but I dont think that has anything to do wih the price of the equipment. The price of photography equipment has 'relatively' not changed that much in the last 40 years.

 

Higher incomes and credit cards has allowed your average Joe, to purchase equipment that has been out of reach for most for so many years, but you got to be a fanatic to spend that type of money on this equipment. To this day, many professional photographers have to rely on the equipment furnished by their job to get by.

 

The other day I was shooting a wedding and there was this guy with a Nikon D2x,a Nikon VR 70-200 f2.8, 50mm 1.4 85mm 1.8, a laptop computer, Flash, portable printer and who knows what else. I discreetly walked up to him and asked him 'are you a professional photographer ?' He said "No, I just took up photography a couple of months ago as a hobby, I'm a Doctor by trade"

[hjoseph7]

Professional photagraphers have a point, in that this is the field they chose to make a living in, but please lets remember that being a professional photographer does not automatically make you an Ansel Adamas.

 

Allot of photographers are stuck in taking certain types of day-to-day assignments that require little or no creativity at all, a forensic photographer is one example.

 

Photography began many, many centuries ago when artist/painters used a light box with a hole on the side to capture the inversed image on the other side of that box. Then the artist would trace around the captured image and base his painting on that image.

 

In the 18th century, a French Scientist by the name of Daguerre invented the first permanent transfer of light to material which was called the Daguerreotype. Later developments by English, German and American scientist would lead to film and the development of portable cameras as we call them today.

 

It was not until Kodak an American company, that cameras became available to the masses. Around this time Professional photography was not a profession at all, except for a minute handful of devotees.

 

With the advent of mass produced cameras and film, photography became a profession, but only to those who were willing to put the time to understand it's underpinings and the money to purchase the most sophisticated equipment.

 

This is how 'Professional Photography' began. A lot of painters naturally turned to this field because of the similarities.

 

Professional Photography has only been around for 100 years at most. The first 50 years there was no schooling at all. No college degrees, paid workshops, or anything like that. People learned through word of mouth.

 

These days the field has become so fascinating for so many people, that anybody could purchase a camera and become a photographer. Well not anybody.

 

Digital photography has made it even simpler. This is how it's allways been since the emergence of Kodak, expept that now it is not the exclusive territory of a certain few, but you can find photographers in every corner of the world, in Asia, South America, Africa, Australia even the Artic regions. All it takes it's inherent artistic ability, a good eye, experience and will power.

 

Those who are wallowing in their pride are wasting their time, because artistic abilitly is spread through out the world randomly regardless.

 

Manufacturers cater to the masses, those who are not willing to put that much time and effort to this fied. Amateurs who are interested in this field, but who have other priorities and Professionals, those who chose this field to earn an living.

 

Manufacturers(most who are not based in America) could care less who buys their equipment, because they are in the business of making money. It's a little bit like automobiles, but I would not go that far. The fact of the matter is, that depending on the individual and not so much the equipment anybody can create a great picture, there is such a thing as 'beginners luck'. Of course experience does play a huge part if you want to remain consistent.

[sitemistic]

Many pros, even top shooters for National Geographic, etc., have used "consumer" SLR's for

years, for various reasons. One major one is size and weight.

<p>I agree with other posters that the market for 1DS Mk. III's and such are likely driven

more by the fact that so many amateurs have so much money than by well-healed pros. I

have covered events where I was astonished to find high school kids walking around with

$10,000 worth of camera gear. Wealthy parents or not, I think it's in the long run it's a

disservice to the kids.