DSLR Pricing

[lisa_b4]

As a 30+ year Nikon user, I was drug kicking and screaming into the digital age (lol) when I bought my second

ever new Nikon body--a D70 (my first new body was a Nikon FA, all my others I bought used). If memory serves me,

I paid $1,100 for the body only. While the D70 was a capable camera (and a BIG improvement over the $1800 D100),

when the D200 came out, I waited 6 months for the bugs to get worked out, and then snapped one up. Specs-wise,

the D200 felt like twice the camera of the D70. Much better build quality, higher resolution, better viewfinder,

etc. If I remember correctly, I paid $1300 for the D200. Essentially twice the camera of the D70 for only $200

more. I passed on the D300 series--they just didn't impress me much. Still, it was clearly a better camera than

the D200 and, after the dust settled, came in around $1,550. Not a lot of improvement, and still a couple of

hundred dollars more than it's predecessor.

 

This is the part I don't understand. DSLRs keep getting more and more expensive, even though more and more people

are buying them.

 

With most electronics, year after year they get much better with much better specs and features, and, the price

continues to drop--just look at TV's as an example. While the D200 was twice the camera for only a few hundred

dollars more, since then, Nikon and the other DSLR manufacturers seem to be intent upon drifting ever upwards in

price. While this is good for the companies that sell them, it's not so good for us consumers. Time was I could

buy a used Nikon FM2 for $250 and know that it would take just about any abuse I could throw at it and last a

minimum of 10 years, and likely 20 or more. Now, the new D600 is $2,000+, and will almost certainly be considered

obsolete in as little as 4-5 years.....So while Nikon started out by making better and better DSLR's that cost

less, or maybe a little more than their predecessors, DSLR pricing now seems to be headed forever upwards.....why?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>D200 --> D300 ... Not a lot of improvement ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's debatable and certainly not the way I see - the D300 was a huge improvement over the D200. Notwithstanding the differences, I still use both though. Started with a D70 too - which didn't really impress me all that much - which is why I purchase an F5 a couple of months later. Turned out to be a big mistake once I got my first D200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DSLRs keep getting more and more expensive, even though more and more people are buying them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I see it differently, the D300 was well worth a price increase from the D200 - and it essentially replaced the D2X and D2Xs which cost $4.5K. Currently, the D800 and at least from the sensor point of view, the D600 replace the $8K D3X. The D700 was 85% of the D3 - at substantially lower cost. The D600 FX is introduced at $900 less than the D700 was at introduction.</p>

<p>Obsolescence: true, camera become obsolete faster these does - it just doesn't mean that they stop functioning.</p>

 

[waltflanagan]

<p>You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't wonder why the BMW 7 series costs more than my 3 series. I can look at the specs and see a huge difference.</p>

<p>The D70 was the lowest model in 2004. It isn't fair to compare it to today's mid range or "prosumer" model.</p>

<p>I bought a Nikon D70 + 18-70 kit lens for $1300 in 2004. Today I can get a D3200 + 18-55 kit lens for $646 which is almost exactly half the price. I also get a far better image quality, a much better rear LCD, etc. but surely you can google both and compare them side by side.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Exchange rate. Inflation. Demand. Take your pick.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"D200 --> D300 ... Not a lot of improvement ..."<br>

That's debatable and certainly not the way I see</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I don't think that is even debateably at all. In 2005 I paid closed to the original $5000 for a D2X only to find out that in late 2007, the $1800 D300 totally exceeded the D2X, let alone the D200.</p>

<p>I own all three of those cameras: D2X, D200, and D300. The $1800 D300 in 2007 totally superseded the $5000 D2X from 2005. As soon as I got the D300, I immediately stopped using both the D2X and D200.</p>

<p>Likewise, today the $3000 D800 completely trumps the D3X introduced in late 2008 for $8000 and was still selling for close to $8000 as recently as last year or even the beginning of this year. And the brand new $2100 D600 has more advanced electronics than the D3X in many ways (but with an lower AF system and construction quality).</p>

<p>I think prices are coming down very rapidly. Nikon does provide higher-end models with more features in an attempt to reset to the higher prices, but that is a somewhat different topic.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd also point out that cameras don't cease to work just because newer models have come out. If you really need (as professionals often do) the new features, if they pay off in ease of work, and so on, then you do want the latest thing.<br>

However, there are apparently a number of people for whom the 6MP and up digital cameras are still desirable: noting that the eBay prices for them are generally much higher than those for many late, great film cameras.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I don't think that is even debateably at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So much for me not trying to ruffle any feathers ;-). Everything is debatable - sometimes it's not worth the effort though. Subjectively, the D200 has ISO 100, a dedicated BKT button, and better skin tones going for it over the D300 - and that's about where it ends.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>camera become obsolete faster these does</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that supposed to be <strong>days</strong>, not does. And I already had coffee this morning.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>My first digital camera was an Olympus E-20. Paid around $1600 and it was 5 mp, not even a true SLR (actually a "ZLR" with non-interchangeable zoom and a couple of accessory lenses). My Nikon D200 was around $1300. Just bought a D7000, which is now selling just under $1,000. In my book, prices are going down -- more megapixels and better AF/AE etc. for less bucks. Along the same lines, it seems like every computer I've bought over the past 20 years has been around $2,000, but I've gone from one with a 150MB heard driver to one with a 250GB hard drive.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The D200 was not the successor to the D70, nor does thr D600 replace the D200/D300 line. Compare the D70 follow up like this: D70 -> D80 -> D90 -> D7000 (and the latter is debatable too). If you compare like this, then the pricing seems stable enough.<br>

The D600 is really a new line, I think, it's not replacing the D300 nor the D700. So no decent way to compare it to any previous model, I'd say.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I paid $1800 for my D100 on 2003, and then immediately purchased a $400 1GB CF card for it. That's $2200. Nine years later, I can get a D600 for $2100, and maybe $30 for some memory.</p>

<p>I would say that his pretty awesome.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>I agree with Lisa B. The price to enter Nikon's semi-pro realm goes up a bit with each technological iteration. I, too, left 35mm film in a "kicking and screaming" manner, and I am dismayed by the fact that, if I want pro features--rugged build, true MLU, vertical release, good AF performance, a true ISO 100, etc.--I currently have to spend about $2,400 to acheive this (Nikon D600 plus grip). This is a great deal of money. Even the now-surpassed D300s runs $1,696--not counting $200+ for the grip.</p>

<p>Thus, all I could afford is the "obsolete" D200. At ISO 100, it is an excellent performer, and thus I cannot see spending double or tripe the price for a D300s, which does not even offer a true ISO 100. I have heard higher ISOs are better on the 300s, but by how much?...and for how much of an investment? One D200/D300s comparison I have seen puts the high ISO difference at 0.4 stops.</p>

[Rob Davies]

<p>Still use my D200 fairly frequently (very clean at base iso), use my D3 most days for the last 4 1/2 years. Both cameras have paid for themselves many times over. Obsolete? Not to me.<br>

I will probably pick up a D800 when the price in the UK drops to just over £2000 (not long now), will hope to get 4+ years out of that one to.</p>

[evannorth]

<p>i can remember paying £1645 for the d100 body shortly after release, last year i bought the d7000 at £785,(body only). much more than twice the camera for just under half the price. although i certainly cant complain about more recent pricing i would like to see lower prices. if you are in the market for a state of the art dslr it always pays to wait a little while for discounts and deals to become available, or better still, forget the latest model and its usual teething troubles and get an outgoing tried and trusted model, learn how to use it and enjoy!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I never buy the latest or greatest, biggest or best and I can still shoot whatever I need. Right now, today, for about $1300 I

can order either a pair of D3200 or D5100 kits, or one of each, with included memory card or extra battery and free

shipping. I then get nice up to date sensors, great resolution, and a few years of reasonable service until I buy the next

pair. When I bought my D200s, the D300 just came out. They price dropped for a little while to about $825 including a

memory card and extra battery. B&H and Adorama both have very good deals right now, IF you don't need the latest or

greatest. And about $55 ea. gets you a full 2 year service/damage plan. I just shot a band and entertainment layout for a bridal brochure and magazine using a borrowed D3100, kit lens, tripod and SB600. The pictures are great and have more than enough resolution for the publisher.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Glen, sorry but your sources of information seem a bit off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>rugged build, true MLU, vertical release, good AF performance, a true ISO 100, etc.--I currently have to spend about $2,400 to acheive this (Nikon D600 plus grip).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want those things, get a D7000. It's the same body as the D600, but with a DX sensor. Around $1400 with grip. There never was a near-pro Nikon body this cheap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even the now-surpassed D300s</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D300s has not been replaced by the D600. One is DX, the other FX, for starters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have heard higher ISOs are better on the 300s, but by how much?...and for how much of an investment? One D200/D300s comparison I have seen puts the high ISO difference at 0.4 stops.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it's more like 1 stop, maybe even a fraction more. On my D300, I am OK up to ISO 2000 in good light (and if needs be, ISO 3200 yields usable images). The D200 (never owned myself, though) above ISO800 started to look rather bad. So, it's certainly a lot more than 0.4. Next to that, the "investment" for the D300 also gave a state of the art AF system, higher framerate, much better screen etc. There was more to the D300 than just a boost in high ISO performance.<br /> If you want to complain about Nikon price strategies, all fine. But bending the facts (and that includes assumptions that the D600 is a natural replacement for the D70 somehow) isn't helping anybody.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I agree with Wouter on this. You have to compare a succession of similar cameras like he did. When you do that you see that prices have been relatively stable, allowing for inflation and exchange rates, while the features and image quality have increased significantly.</p>

[istvan_l_rincz]

<p>Hi,<br>

I can agree with some of these facts. I started with the D100, D2x, D200, D4. Still have them all and if I compare them I can clearly see the difference. Have to say I still use my D100 for some of my jobs.<br>

Not just the resoluton was rising from 6 to 16 Mp also the ISO from 800 (max on the D2x) was growing up to 12800 (on the D4) . It depends what you need it for.<br>

For landscape or architecture I wouldn't buy a D4 but for pictures with life and emotions you must have it.<br>

For todays wedding photos you definitly need a body of the new product line. ISO handling for example was always a big problem for the old Nikons. Of course its not just the body, the lens is also quite important. But if I compare them I can see a big evoluton from D100 to the D4, not just in resolution or Iso adjustment. The color dinamic, frame size, speed and all the new features makes them more expensive. I took my first pic on the D4 with my 135mm/2.0 D DC and I can tell you it was an absolutly different feeling to look through the viewfinder. Like you see everything different than before.<br>

We have to accept that the best models are always more expensive than the previous ones.If you want to have a little bit more you will have to pay for it. More or less.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>You gave me a lead in to something I've been finding interesting all summer long. Out of curiosity I looked up what the original selling price in 1951 was of my Rollieflex MX f3.5, a compact camera/normal lens aimed at the serious amatuer/ entry pro market. Original price from a 1952 catalog shows it was $270. Adjusting for inflation it came out to around $2,250. Hmm. That's about the price of a D600. Just for something else to do, I dug around to find the original price of my Leica IIIc with 50mm Elmar f3.5 lens, from 1942. I could not find a 1942 price, but did find a 1948 price of about $400. That works out to around $3,500, which is about the price of a Nikon D800 with 50mm f1.4 lens. The Barnack Leicas were always marketed to the serious amatuer photographer with money to spend, and were also favored as a "light" camera by most pros. Sort of like the D800.</p>

<p>What seems to be the pattern is that not only recently, but over the past decades the price point stays the same for camera gear. The difference might be that it now takes FAR less time for camera prices to come down as newer models come out than it once did. (This doesn't seem to hold for lens prices though.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you cant really compare a d70 to a d600, since full frame sensors didnt exist when the d70 was released, and they are much more costly to produce than APS-C sensors. a d7000>d70 comparison might be more apt, since both are about the same price point. as for prices going up, in actuality its ebb and flow. a d600 costs <em>thousands</em> less than a d3x, and both have a 24mp FX sensor. the d600 is priced lower than the d700 and it has <em>double</em> the resolution. if the OP is hoping for a pro-level DSLR at the $500 price point, that aint gonna happen anytime soon. but what we have been seeing is that the $1000-ish price point remains pretty good for prosumers/enthusiasts; if you look at the progression from d80>d90>d7000, you can see a steady improvement in cameras and features.</p>

<p>IMO, whining that digital cameras become obsolete faster than manual cameras is a total waste of time. we're in the digital age now. no one's stopping you from using a FM2 for all your shooting needs. when new cameras get introduced, it puts pressure on people to upgrade their equipment, but no one's forcing you to do so. for some it's about getting new toys; for others it's about obtaining a performance advantage for professional use. if a pro needs a $6000 camera because they have a shoot which requires that, they don't moan about it, they just do it. for amateurs, it maybe means budgeting wisely and stretching equipment expenditures over some years. but one thing's for sure about living in an age of high technology: we can't go backward, even if we wanted to.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D70 was introduced in early 2004. Along with Canon's first Digital Rebel that arrived a few months earlier, those two were the first sub-$1000 DSLRs that marked the beginning of digital SLR becoming mainstream products.</p>

<p>Actually, Canon had introduced a full-35-frame DSLR a little more than a year before the D70. That Canon was the original 1Ds with 11MP and cost $8000, introduced at Photokina 2002. Now 10 years later, the 24MP D600 and 20MP Canon 6D debut at Photokina 2012 at $2100.</p>

[rossb]

<p> The D600 seems overpriced to me and I will just not buy one. However I have a D200 that I bought new and it seems fine to me. Pretty much any camera that works well is all I need. It's not like I am standing on the sidelines of an NFL game trying to get the cover of Sports Illustrated. I suppose when my Grand daughter gets a little older I will take some T-ball pictures but I can do that with any camera that I pull out of the closet. However stuff does get more expensive every year. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Yes, but Shun a 24mp camera today does not occupy the same "niche" as an 11mp camera did in 2002. I.e., there are two ways to look at this. One is to look at what you get for the money, and the other is to look at where in the "pack" the product falls. Today, 20mp falls in the middle of the pack, not the front. As I've often thought, real value seems to lie about one generation behind the leader.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[glen_t]

<p>Kent: if I understand you correctly, what you say is almost my point exactly. I was not trying to get into some complicated comparison involving cameras of differing formats, DX and FX. All I was trying to point out is that, in prior years, Nikon's semi-pro or "second down" camera was not a $2,000+ proposition (i.e. the D200 being second from the top, the D2 series). Now, one looks at the lineup and sees the third or fourth down, the new D600, at $2,100 (without grip...and tax, if one buys locally). The D4 and D800/E, at least, are ahead of the new D600. Some may even put the D700 ahead of the D600, thus making it fourth down...at $2,100.</p>

<p>Someone also suggests the purchase of a D7000 and MB-D11 grip, at about $1,400. In plain terms, anything much beyond the $1,000 price point is simply unapproachable for a middle class buyer. Further, the D7000 is not a true semi-pro camera, as it is not built to the standard of the D200 (again, once second down in Nikon's lineup). The D7000 is a decent choice, but it is not at the level of a D200--when the D200 was introduced.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I was not trying to get into some complicated comparison involving cameras of differing formats, DX and FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glen T., it is not complicated, but you are exactly making a totally unfair comparison between today's FX DSLRs against DX DSLRs back in 2005. FX is inherently a lot more expensive due to sensor cost, whose price increases exponentially along with sensor area. A good example today is Nikon's D600 and D7000; other than being 24MP FX vs. 16MP DX, they have almost identical features while the D600 is roughly twice as expensive.</p>

<p>Back in 2005, Nikon's top DSLRs: D2X, D2HS and D200 were cheaper than today's top DSLRs only because Nikon had no FX DSLR back then while today, all the most expensive ones are FX.</p>

<p>However, back in 2005, Canon had FX (full-35mm-frame) DSLRs. Back then, the 1Ds (2002) and 1Ds Mark II (2005) were introduced at $8000 while the 2nd-tier (and also the lowest tier) FX DSLR was the 5D, which was around $3000.</p>

<p>Today, Nikon has the D4 ($6000), D800 ($3000) and D600 ($2100). Canon has the 1DX, 5D Mark III and 6D at roughly the same price points. (I am not sure we should still consider the 1DS Mark III current; that model was introduced back in August 2007 also at $8000, but that was over 5 years ago.) As I wrote earlier, today, neither Canon nor Nikon can introduce any more $8000 DSLRs, FX or DX. At $3000, the D800 just trumps them all.</p>

<p>Of course, today's $2100 Canon 6D totally kills the $3000 5D from 2005, but that is a separate discussion about how quickly high-tech electronics advance.</p>

<p>P.S. The D200 was never the #2 DSLR in Nikon's lineup. Unlike the D1, D3, and D4, there has never been a plain D2. The D2 series was always split into D2H and D2X models with subsequent D2HS and D2XS improvements, respectively. Therefore, the D200 was never above #3, pricewise.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>Interesting points, Shun...</p>

<p>However, if you want to split hairs over pricing (though I had ranking more in mind), then the new and expensive D600 is rather way down the line. Not only is there the D4 at $5,999, but there is the mega-expensive D3x at $7,999, the D800E at $3,299, the D800 at $2,999, and the D700 at $2,699, all higher in cost to that of the D600, at $2,099.</p>

<p>I understand your prespective in terms of technology and cost, and even applaud Nikon for not moving its production completely to China (as many electronics outfits have). My point regards more of a "social" concern--how ordinary people are being fastly priced out of the realm of better photographic equipment. Basically, our only choice is used gear of the previous generation, and then, when we buy it and like something about it--and perhaps produce some good results with it--we are then told that we are neophytes because we use "obsolete" equipment.</p>