DSLR Pricing

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>My point is 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 "obsolte" equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you considered the D7000? At $1200 initially and just below $1000 today, it has a 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards, 39 point AF with 9 cross type AF points, not to mention 1080p HD video. The D7000's features are a lot stronger than the D200 at $1700 back in 2005.</p>

<p>There are good reasons that the D7000 is my preferred DX-format DSLR today while the D300 is the backup. The D7000 should have a lot more features than any average photograher needs, at less than $1000.</p>

<p>BTW, the D3X and D700 are "previous generation" cameras that have officially been discontinued. The way you include them and also double counting the D800 and D800E to push the new D600 down on the price list is pretty silly: <a href="http://www.nikon-image.com/products/discontinue/camera/#h301">http://www.nikon-image.com/products/discontinue/camera/#h301</a></p>

[glen_t]

<p>I do not think my listing is "silly," as all of the cameras I have mentioned are available to be purchased new.</p>

<p>I have given serious consideration to the D7000. While it has many good features, it still seems like a toy of a camera. In the decade or so that I have been into photography, the D7000 is the only camera that I have ever dropped. It is quite small and light, and, upon close inspection, has quite a bit of plastic. From a slight fall, there was a crack in the plastic along the bottom edge of the grip. I do not have large hands, and yet I found the D7000 too small for me, even with the grip attached. Thus, am I willing to pay $1,200+ for the D7000 and corresponding grip? I would have to answer that such a purchase would be a half-hearted one.</p>

[jim_devlin]

<blockquote>My point regards more of a "social" concern--how ordinary people are being fastly priced out of the realm of better photographic equipment.</blockquote>

<p>Wow, I couldn't disgaree with this statement more. Never mind even the D7000 - the typical owner of a $500 D3100 kit likely has the best photographic equipment they've ever owned. Just in my small circle of friends I know a few people who were holiday snapshooters at best with their point & shoot cameras in the film era but have become much more avid photographers thanks to today's consumer DSLR's. They are doing just fine in today's camera market.</p>

[lisa_b4]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, does anyone actually have some hard data to support this assertion? I.E. compare the cost of a replacement sensor for a D7000 vs a D600? While I believe that there is some difference in actual costs, I also suspect that a lot of it has to do with pricing what the market will bear. Does a Mercedes windshield cost more to make than a Corolla windshield? Possibly a little bit more, but the large price difference between the two pieces of glass is mostly due to charging what the market will bear--not the actual cost differences.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>Please reread my post--I cite "better" photographic equipment. Throughout my commentary here, I have identified various features normally associated with semi-pro gear: superior build quality, real MLU, vertical grip/vertical release, better AF performance, and there are a number of others. Sure, the D3100 has a nice sensor and is a good entry-level or consumer-level DSLR. I am not discussing this matter, though.</p>

<p>Lisa B: Again, I agree. The additional markup on such things is not always proportional--or justified--in regard to the actual cost for producing such a technology. I suppose what we are really discussing here is buccaneer capitalism, which extends far beyond the realm of Nikon. At least Nikon still employs people in its native Japan, and has not completely sold out to China.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Lisa, larger sensors cost a lot more is a well known fact that has been discussed many times on photo.net and elsewhere. I just made a quick Google search on "FX sensor cost" and the first result happens to be a thread on this forum: <a href="00aNFb">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aNFb</a>, which in trun cites this Wiki page: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR</a></p>

<p>A couple of years ago, Thom Hogan estimated that a DX sensor costs about $50 to manufacture while an FX one was $500. And if you use the typical retail price = 3x cost, just the sensor alone would put an FX DSLR at $1500, and you still need to add the other components. Those costs might have gone down somewhat on both side since then, but the difference is certainly huge; I am not sure that it is as huge as the 20x different Wikipedia claims.</p>

<p>There are reasons that medium-format digital backs (which are typically smaller than 6x4.5cm but are much larger than FX) are extremely expensive. For those who are not yet familiar with this topic, please do your own search.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>One of the things I find a bit odd is people talking about how expensive the Pro DSLR's are. I remember when I bought my F5. When it was introduced it was a shade over 3K it soon dropped to around 2K. That was in 1996.</p>

<p>If you want a pro built camera designed to hold up to pro use you have to pay a little more for them. be it a F5 or a D4. You get what you pay for.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>I cannot disagree with you, Michael, as better things do cost more money. In reviewing all of the comments here, including my own, I would have to say that, in comparison to other companies, Nikon may perhaps be the least guilty of any type of price hiking. I do not have any further information on this, and so I will leave it at that.</p>

<p>I suppose I, and some others here, are a bit jolted by what would seem to be a fast increase in DSLR prices. Your point about the F5 is interesting, especially in that the price quickly dropped from 3K to 2K. Today, I have not observed that trend. In fact, I have been expecting the D300s to drop with the introduction of the D600, and that has not happened--still basically list price if you want this rather "dated" design. Even with the advent of other competing cameras, various older Nikon DSLRs that are "discontinued," but still being sold new, maintain their lofty price points.</p>

[lisa_b4]

<blockquote>

<p>Lisa, larger sensors cost a lot more is a well known fact that has been discussed many times on photo.net and elsewhere. For those who are not yet familiar with this topic, please do your own search.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun,<br>

I'm well aware of the speculation regarding sensor cost--I was asking if anyone, anywhere, had any hard data, i.e. like a receipt from Nikon or Canon for a DX sensor replacement and an FX sensor replacement that showed the cost of the parts themselves. I did search for this information, and found nothing definitive, which I why I posted the question here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a pro built camera designed to hold up to pro use you have to pay a little more for them. be it a F5 or a D4. You get what you pay for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike I agree, but I'm not talking about the top of the line pro cameras, I'm talking about the prosumer bodies like the D200, D300, D600, etc. The D200 was weather sealed and came with a tough, all metal body, and had nearly twice the resolution (among many other upgrades) than the D70, and yet it cost only a few hundred dollars more. It seems logical that the D400, if it ever materializes, "should" be priced sub $1,000, but I suspect that it will not.....</p>

</blockquote><br />

[glen_t]

<p>Lisa B: you state the case for the D200, and its features and price point, better than I.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Lisa, that is not speculation. The Wikipedia page has clear explanations why larger sensors cost a lot more to manufacture, and I encourage you to look up more information on that subject. Nikon's exact cost for the sensors is proprietry information; it is unlikely that we'll ever find out the exact numbers. Concerning repairs, any cost will be parts + labor, and the labor cost to take the whole camera apart to change the sensor will be high. Unless it is a D3 or D4, most likely you are better off buying another camera. Therefore, it is unlikely that you'll find out the exact sensor cost that way.</p>

<p>The original price for the D70 was $1000 (or $999.95) and the D200 $1700, so actually the D200 was quite a bit more than the D70. Meanwhile, the D7000 is also weather sealed with far better features than even the D300, and it is now down to below $1000. That is the best proof that DSLR prices are actually dropping, and the D7000 provides great value for serious amateurs. Glen T. is entited to his option that he doesn't like the D7000, but the D7000 option exists and there are a lot of happy owners.</p>

<p>Of course if there is a new D400, Nikon will reset it back to the $1700 or so level with more new features. Why would they produce anther $1000 D400 to complete against the D7000 at the same price level? That would make absolutely no business sense.</p>

[lisa_b4]

I suppose it's worth asking: if DSLR pricing is reflective of actual costs and not price manipulation by manufacturers, then shouldn't a D600 come in around $1,500-$1,600 given it is nearly identical to a D7000 other than the FX sensor and a D7000 is only $1,000 or so--assuming the speculation about a DX sensor costing $20 and an FX sensor costing $500 are true?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm well aware of the speculation regarding sensor cost--I was asking if anyone, anywhere, had any hard data, i.e. like a receipt from Nikon or Canon for a DX sensor replacement and an FX sensor replacement that showed the cost of the parts themselves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Companies aren't going to tell you what their costs on proprietary products are. Even if they sell you a part, it won't reflect the real costs. It's likely a lot of their costs are covered under contracts that have strong non-disclosure clauses.</p>

[lisa_b4]

<blockquote>

<p>Companies aren't going to tell you what their costs on proprietary products are. Even if they sell you a part, it won't reflect the real costs. It's likely a lot of their costs are covered under contracts that have strong non-disclosure clauses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would think that would be obvious, the info I was after was what the sensor replacement (ie retail) cost(s) would be. Some people are claiming that a DX sensor costs $20 while an FX sensor costs $500, it would be nice to see something, anything, that corroborated those figures....surely someone must have paid for a sensor replacement by now?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>assuming the speculation about a DX sensor costing $20 and an FX sensor costing $500 are true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, typically, retail price is about 3x cost, maybe 4x. (That is just a rule of thumb. The markup on some products is extremely high.)</p>

<p>So hypothetically, if the sensor cost difference between the D600 and D7000 is $480, the retail difference should be $480 x 3 = $1440. And I think we are in the ballpark. Additionally, the D600 seems to have a deeper buffer, and being 24MP instead of 16MP, I am sure there is some additional memory and electronic cost besides the sensor.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Lisa, in 1994 a Nikon N70 film camera was priced somewhere around $450 dollar at Ritz Camera. Today you can buy a Nikon 24MP D3200 with a stabilized lens at B&H for $650 and will never pay a dollar for film. A wild life photographer can easily shoot 5000 digital images in a 2-3 day period. Assuming that one paid for 1994 grey market film, Fuji mailer processing in Arizona, if they still have that lab, and postage for 36 images a young person today would have to pay at least $1250 1994 dollars to take that many images if they had to shoot film. I realize at the high end cameras appear to be much more expensive but all-in-all photography especially for young people starting out is cheaper. My friends in college who were seriously into photography in the 70s used to sell their plasma once a week to pay for film. I started with an old Mamiya 6X7 then a Nikormatt and F2as then a N70, N90 and F4s and went digital with a Fuji S2 and then went to a D2X and D200 and currently shoot a D3s and D800e, eleven cameras in 50 years. All of these cameras were/are to me stupendous but it could be argued that the D3200 takes better images under certain ideal circumstances than all but the D800e. If you look carefully there are great bargains. More people buy cameras these days because they are not encumbered by film cost and processing and the gear over all really does cost less to start out. I would not want to go backwards. I thinks its great, n'est-ce pas ? Good hunting. Andy</p>