Why are mirrorless systems so expensive?

After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

It seems to me that they haven't been around long enough or gotten the market share to let their prices drop. Everything is still priced in that "It is very new, and we still have to try and recover R&D costs" range. Plus there is probably still that bit of a 'premium' factor to them in some people's eyes, being the smaller and lighter option compared to the more established competition from larger camera bodies.

Personally I think their pricing point is part of why mirrorless systems aren't taking off as well as some people expected them to. They're up against full sized DSLRs and a similar price. The one real point they have over their larger cousins, their small size, is offset by some of the drawbacks like their poor battery life, funky viewfinders, and other issues. So for some the cost just doesn't match up with value. This in turn means that sales have stayed poor to lukewarm, and the volume isn't moving enough to drop the price into a far more sensible range.

camera manufacturers are trying to make up for the loss of revenue due to smartphones being just as good as DSLRs.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17457169
camera manufacturers are trying to make up for the loss of revenue due to smartphones being just as good as DSLRs.

Yeah, if your taking snap shots

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17457169
camera manufacturers are trying to make up for the loss of revenue due to smartphones being just as good as DSLRs.

LOL I saw what you did there!

With any new technology, you have to pay to play

rfe777 wrote in post #17457105
After few months of reading reviews and checking at camera stores, I've decided not to move to mirrorless but to keep my Canon 70D DSLR. Every mirrorless system is currently very expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. The bodies today are not worth the price, as only the very top models from each company are, IMHO, complete products. Each lens costs much more than an equivalent one in the same focal lengths, while not promising stellar optical quality that is a derivative of the very high price. So, I don't see any logic in getting into such an investment while not 100% I'll be getting results that fit camera & lenses at those price ranges. A DSLR system, while still not cheap (an intermediate one in my case), still gives you good-for-your-money options.

I don't know if it's the new technology or making a modern camera system more compact while still keeping the picture quality, or both, that are responsible for the overall high prices.

Currently, it's just not worth it.

They cost more because they're sold in much smaller volume (for now). Also, some really don't cost much, if at all more than an equivalent DSLR would... look at the Sony a600 or Olympus EM10 for example;

Sony a6000 + 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $699
-24mp APS-C sensor
-Hybrid AF with 179-point focal plane phase-detection and 25 contrast detect points (and it's DSLR worthy in most respects)
-11fps
-3-inch tilting LCD with 921,000 dots
-Built-in Wi-Fi and NFC

Canon T5i + 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $699
-18mp APS-C sensor (from several years ago)
-9 cross type phase detection AF points
-5fps
-3" articulating touch panel LCD screen with 1,040,000 dots

Olympus EM-10 + 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $799
-16mp micro four thirds sensor
-81 Selectable contrast detection AF points
-8fps
-Tiltable 3 inch touchscreen LCD with 1,037,000 dots
-Built-in Wi-Fi

Those are just 2 examples, there are actually a few more I would definitely throw in there (Fuji X-E2, Samsung NX300, Panasonic GX7, etc). Based on those specs alone my money would go to the Sony personally, especially when you take into account many of the other things it offers.

As for lenses, the Canon's are definitely cheaper on average, but I think that'll change with time.

It's all part of the product life cycle (Google it). The first manufacturers to release a product take on the highest development and promotional costs.

In my experience it's all down to what they think they can get away with charging. If you take the dollar price and convert to UK pounds, the UK price is about a third or more higher. I paid £659.00 for my 70D and 18-55. Major UK retailers sell it for £850-900.00. There are a lot of good CSC's like the A7 OMD and a lot of Panny's. But everything's overpriced over here. I also see mfrs treating the high end camera market like a lot of Christian record labels do. The labels often make worship music for a middle class conservative Christian market, (the same audience as many televangelists). These people have disposable income they like to spend (or donate) and the camera mfrs seem to make new high end cameras to target a similar income bracket.

Colin Glover wrote in post #17463828
In my experience it's all down to what they think they can get away with charging. If you take the dollar price and convert to UK pounds, the UK price is about a third or more higher. I paid £659.00 for my 70D and 18-55. Major UK retailers sell it for £850-900.00. There are a lot of good CSC's like the A7 OMD and a lot of Panny's. But everything's overpriced over here. I also see mfrs treating the high end camera market like a lot of Christian record labels do. The labels often make worship music for a middle class conservative Christian market, (the same audience as many televangelists). These people have disposable income they like to spend (or donate) and the camera mfrs seem to make new high end cameras to target a similar income bracket.

Colin when comparing US Dollar prices to UK or even EU prices you must remember to remove the VAT. Many of the prices in the US at the moment are about 20% cheaper than direct conversion to US$. But they do not show the local/state sales taxes in the price. While UK prices include the 20% VAT that we have to pay. Take sales tax out of the equation and the prices are the same, at least within the average sort of variation one sees in street prices.

Even if there is no import duty on the goods, when buying from abroad, there is still a good chance that you will get hit with the 20% VAT on them, when they go through customs. There are things that are quite a bit cheaper, even allowing for the tax differential, in the US. Even european manufactured items can be cheaper in the US, but at the moment that doesn't apply to photography stuff. Most of the things that I am interested in that are cheaper the US Government has made really really difficult to ship outside the USA, and the stuff isn't even exported to the UK a lot of the time, because it is not worth it to the manufacturers. The EU market as a whole being about 1% the size of the US market.

Alan

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17457713
They cost more because they're sold in much smaller volume (for now). Also, some really don't cost much, if at all more than an equivalent DSLR would... look at the Sony a600 or Olympus EM10 for example;

Sony a6000 + 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $699
-24mp APS-C sensor
-Hybrid AF with 179-point focal plane phase-detection and 25 contrast detect points (and it's DSLR worthy in most respects)
-11fps
-3-inch tilting LCD with 921,000 dots
-Built-in Wi-Fi and NFC

Canon T5i + 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $699
-18mp APS-C sensor (from several years ago)
-9 cross type phase detection AF points
-5fps
-3" articulating touch panel LCD screen with 1,040,000 dots

Olympus EM-10 + 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens $799
-16mp micro four thirds sensor
-81 Selectable contrast detection AF points
-8fps
-Tiltable 3 inch touchscreen LCD with 1,037,000 dots
-Built-in Wi-Fi

Those are just 2 examples, there are actually a few more I would definitely throw in there (Fuji X-E2, Samsung NX300, Panasonic GX7, etc). Based on those specs alone my money would go to the Sony personally, especially when you take into account many of the other things it offers.

As for lenses, the Canon's are definitely cheaper on average, but I think that'll change with time.

The EM10 and a6000 are actually more comparable to the 70D....When you look at what these two cameras are offering for the price of admission, they're actually a pretty tremendous value, IMO.

In most cases, I actually find that comparable mirrorless systems are cheaper than their DSLR counter-parts, when you look at the features provided at a given price point.

In terms of lenses....glass is glass, whether you develop a lens for a mirrorless mount or a DSLR mount. No getting around the cost of high quality glass + the underlying R&D costs behind each lens.