Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 04 Jan 2017 (Wednesday) 09:50
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?

 
quickben
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 04, 2017 09:50 |  #1

I'm just thinking. With the current global economy, and the ever encroaching plague of smartphone photography taking bigger chunks of the market, are companies like Canon, Nikon etc pricing themselves out of business ?

Every new product that Canon has released over the last few years has been priced unrealistically high, especially at launch. I can honestly see it getting to the point where most people will just turn away and either rely on their old kit or just use their mobile phones instead.

Between my wife and I, we have more disposable income now than we ever have and yet I get more and more frustrated at how much these companies think the mass market is prepared to pay for their hobby.

Obviously, I'm not including pros, who are more or less bent over a barrel, sorry guys...;-)a


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
john crossley's Avatar
2,033 posts
Joined Nov 2009
The Rhubarb Triangle
Jan 04, 2017 10:45 |  #2

quickben wrote in post #18232809 (external link)
I'm just thinking. With the current global economy, and the ever encroaching plague of smartphone photography taking bigger chunks of the market, are companies like Canon, Nikon etc pricing themselves out of business ?

Every new product that Canon has released over the last few years has been priced unrealistically high, especially at launch. I can honestly see it getting to the point where most people will just turn away and either rely on their old kit or just use their mobile phones instead.

Between my wife and I, we have more disposable income now than we ever have and yet I get more and more frustrated at how much these companies think the mass market is prepared to pay for their hobby.

Obviously, I'm not including pros, who are more or less bent over a barrel, sorry guys...;-)a

Photography always has been an expensive hobby.


Those that can, do. Those that can't whinge.

LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
THREAD ­ STARTER
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 04, 2017 10:48 |  #3

john crossley wrote in post #18232866 (external link)
Photography always has been an expensive hobby.

Agreed. But prices are going up in a marketplace where they should be going down or at least plateauing, surely.


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,169 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 10 months ago by Wilt. 7 edits done in total.
Jan 04, 2017 10:58 |  #4

john crossley wrote in post #18232866 (external link)
Photography always has been an expensive hobby.


Agreed.

  • In 1964 the world's first TTL film SLRs came onto the market. 'Inexpensive' was $160 (with f/2 normal lens), 'expensive' was $420 (with f/1.4 normal lens)...gasoline was $0.30 at the time. So the cameras (with normal lens) were 533 gallons of gas and 1400 gallons of gas. And then you paid more for film and processing, more than $3.50 for every 20 exposures.
  • Now, a cheap dSLR (T6) is $475 with zoom and the expensive 1Dx is $6350 and gas is about $2.60, a low 182 gallons up to 2440 gallons; the 5DIV is $3850 (with f/1.4 normal lens), or 1480 gallons. But you do not have to pay for every shot you take!
  • The US median annual income in 1963 was $6350, in 2015 was $55775.
  • So the 'expensive' camera was 3.45 weeks of median income in 1963 plus you paid for every shot;
    now the 5DIV is 3.6 weeks of median income and the 1Dx is 5.9 weeks of income. And 'every shot is free'.
    The 'inexpensive' camera was 1.3 weeks of 1963 wages plus film and processing, and now the T6 is only 0.45 weeks of 2015 wages, and every shot is free!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
THREAD ­ STARTER
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 04, 2017 11:05 |  #5

Wilt wrote in post #18232876 (external link)
Agreed.

  • In 1964 the world's first TTL film SLRs came onto the market. 'Inexpensive' was $160 (with f/2 normal lens), 'expensive' was $420 (with f/1.4 normal lens)...gasoline was $0.30 at the time. So the cameras (with normal lens) were 533 gallons of gas and 1400 gallons of gas. And then you paid more for film and processing, about $12 for every 36 exposures.
  • Now, a cheap dSLR (T6) is $475 with zoom and the expensive 1Dx is $6350 and gas is about $2.60, a low 182 gallons up to 2440 gallons; the 5DIV is $3850 (with f/1.4 normal lens), or 1480 gallons. But you do not have to pay for every shot you take!

I get what you're saying. Maybe it's just me. I'm getting back into photography after a couple of years of lost interest, but I just can't bring myself to think that it's worth the money these days.

Canon have just increased the prices of their entire range in Europe. Maybe that's the cause of my frustration.


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Post has been edited 10 months ago by Dan Marchant.
Jan 04, 2017 11:12 |  #6

New, cutting edge, camera tech is like new cars or new computers. It is expensive to develop and so costs need to be high to recoup investment, but then drop quickly over time. This is exacerbated by the fact that the early adopter market is quite small.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,169 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Jan 04, 2017 11:15 |  #7

quickben wrote in post #18232887 (external link)
I get what you're saying. Maybe it's just me. I'm getting back into photography after a couple of years of lost interest, but I just can't bring myself to think that it's worth the money these days.

Canon have just increased the prices of their entire range in Europe. Maybe that's the cause of my frustration.

Well, I have no idea what has happened to camera prices in Europe in 1963including import duties vs. 2015 with VAT


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
K Soze's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Jan 04, 2017 11:19 |  #8

quickben wrote in post #18232887 (external link)
I get what you're saying. Maybe it's just me. I'm getting back into photography after a couple of years of lost interest, but I just can't bring myself to think that it's worth the money these days.

Canon have just increased the prices of their entire range in Europe. Maybe that's the cause of my frustration.

You are also forgetting to ask yourself are the cameras are better now then they were in "the old days" As a collector and user of vintage cameras such as the RollieFlex 2.8c Hasselblad C/M501, Lica M3, Mamiya RZ 67 and a Crown Graphic, the answer is YES!

You are paying the same price, or less, for better gear, and far more complicated gear to boot.


I try to make art by pushing buttons

LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
MatthewK's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Maryland
Jan 04, 2017 11:22 |  #9

Canon needs a business model, and it's fairly simple that their most capable and spec'd lenses are more expensive. The best part is that they have great, affordable options for those who don't want to spring for the L glass and 5 series bodies: 50 STM, 35 f/2.0 IS, 100 macro, 55-250 STM, Rebel t6i, (buy used and refurbished for even better pricing). But, like me, it's easy once you buy those first few bits to talk yourself into something just sliiiiiiiiightly more expensive.

Back in 2008, when I dove into photography, I balked at the ~$900 price of the Canon 40D and 18-135 kit that I bought used from Adorama. It was the most I had ever spent on a hobby, and I vowed that I would never pay anymore for photography gear because, what more could I need? It wasn't too long before I stumbled onto L series lenses, and WOW... expensive! Who the hell would spend $1400 on a 24-70 f/2.8? If I could go back and tell myself how much I've spent on this glass, plastic and metal, I would probably have laughed myself to death in disbelief (and subsequently created a time paradox).


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
THREAD ­ STARTER
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 04, 2017 11:28 |  #10

K Soze wrote in post #18232907 (external link)
You are also forgetting to ask yourself are the cameras are better now then they were in "the old days" As a collector and user of vintage cameras such as the RollieFlex 2.8c Hasselblad C/M501, Lica M3, Mamiya RZ 67 and a Crown Graphic, the answer is YES!

You are paying the same price, or less, for better gear, and far more complicated gear to boot.

I'm talking in relatively recent terms. I bought my first dSLR in 2003 and I hadn't had my AE-1P for very long before that. So I suppose I'm talking about differences in the last 10-15 years.

And mainly lenses, to be honest. The prices of the 16-35 2.8 III and 35 1.4 II are ludicrous. Yes, they're better than their predecessors, but are they that much better ?


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Nathan's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Boston
Post has been last edited 10 months ago by Nathan. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 04, 2017 11:28 |  #11

"Proper" hobby photography? I don't know what that is.

If anything, it's more likely that the hobby of photography is more accessible today that it's ever been in the past. There are more cameras on the market than ever and anyone who is interested in getting into the hobby merely needs to pick up a previous release of a camera.

You've assumed that hobbyists must pick up the latest and greatest technology. Along with MatthewK, the 40D was the only new camera body or lens I'd ever purchased. From then on, everything has been used.

Camera manufacturers have already figured in us hobby photographers, as well as professionals, in their business plan. Bottom line... lenses and cameras are still selling. Pre-orders come in on waitlists at new releases, irrespective of the initial MSRP. After demand has diminished, then the prices fall. This has never really changed.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
THREAD ­ STARTER
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 04, 2017 11:32 |  #12

Nathan wrote in post #18232924 (external link)
"Proper" hobby photography? I don't know what that is.

If anything, it's more likely that the hobby of photography is more accessible today that it's every been in the past. There are more cameras on the market than ever and anyone who is interested in getting into the hobby merely needs to pick up a previous release of a camera. You've assumed that hobbyists must pick up the latest and greatest technology.

As opposed to the FB/Insta crowd using their phones. Not that some of them don't create great images, some of them do.


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,169 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 10 months ago by Wilt. 5 edits done in total.
Jan 04, 2017 11:41 |  #13

Accessability of the hobby, ignoring the fundamental equipment itself...if you shot 10000 photos in a year, like is so common today with a dSLR, even with inexpensive film and processing deals it would cost $3.50 for 20 exposures, or $1750 per year for color film and processing thru mail order discount places!

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/1964%20costs_zpsvknhaqnb.jpg


...and that was cheap, at the time. Usual costs from your local processor were much higher.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 04, 2017 12:05 |  #14

quickben wrote in post #18232887 (external link)
I'm getting back into photography after a couple of years of lost interest, but I just can't bring myself to think that it's worth the money these days.

quickben wrote in post #18232923 (external link)
And mainly lenses, to be honest. The prices of the 16-35 2.8 III and 35 1.4 II are ludicrous. Yes, they're better than their predecessors, but are they that much better ?

So, if you don't like the prices of these new lenses, then buy the previous models. Why can't you get a 16-35 2.8 version 2 and/or a 35 1.4 version one? To demand the very best and the very newest, and then complain about the prices - well, that doesn't seem reasonable. There are many options available when it comes to DSLR bodies and lenses, some of the options are low priced, some are high priced, and many are in between. Pick the gear that fits your budget.

To say that the prices of these top-of-the-line, upscale, top-shelf, brand new lenses would keep one from pursuing photography as a hobby is akin to saying that the price of a brand new Ferrari is going to keep you from driving a car. There are lots of used Toyotas and Chevys out there!

If you truly love photography itself, then you won't let the price of super-high-end gear keep you from taking the hobby up again. You can get a DSLR and a versatile lens or two for well under a thousand bucks USD. Just check the classified ads here on POTN and you'll find some used gear that you can make great images with.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Jan 04, 2017 12:06 |  #15

quickben wrote in post #18232809 (external link)
Every new product that Canon has released over the last few years has been priced unrealistically high,

totally stopped reading here ^^^

.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,



i didn't really, but probably should have. I can't conceive of how you frame this argument with that as the base line.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

13,364 views & 91 likes for this thread
Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.003 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.09s
Latest registered member is CSBozza
526 guests, 450 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016