Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?

Bassat wrote in post #18233704
Completely mistaken economic logic. Prices do not, and cannot, go up when sales go down. Say Canon can't sell the 5D4 for $3600 because nobody is willing to pay that much. How many do you think they will sell if they raise the price to $4000? Companies don't set the retail price of any manufactured object. The market does that for them.

If sales go down, the price goes down to get more inline with the market, and sale go up. Cashflow is much more important in the market place than profit, in the short-term.

Wrong...wrong...wrong.

The low end is gone and unit sales are plunging. To continue to be a big company, they need to focus on high value, high priced items. You'll see this going forward from everyone. Sony even stated such.

Actually when overall sales go down you can raise your prices...

In my own personal experience it really isn't that insane of a thing to raise prices during a market slump, but it isn't done by doing the same old thing you were from the start and offering the same service/product you had been in the past.

Markets slumping and profit margins falling? That's time to look at your business and what you're offering. And despite what some people think a business does not need every last client they can get their hands on to stay afloat. Coming out of university I had been doing some fairly low tier software development contracts, and taking on as many small jobs as I could from as many clients as I could handle at a time. Then slowly I began to refocus my offerings and target clients along a far narrower focus. I'm now down to about 1/10th of my total client base in a year, but making nearly 10 times as much as I was. (And as a bonus, I'm working about half the hours on average now, because I have hardly any clients I need to deal with.) This is the difference between a recent university grad student working for peanuts as a code monkey just to make ends meet, and an industry professional specializing in a specific important technology.


Cameras are going along a similar path: The biggest hit in camera sales has long been the smaller point and shoot. The little "Lets pull this out for holiday snapshots" kind of cameras that now come built in with your phone. They're cheap. Their profit margins kind of suck, and there are a lot of options on the market with a ton of players involved.

So what does a company do in a time like that? Pivot and refocus. Dump the cheap useless low level stuff that is hard to make a profit with and sucks up a ton of resources, and refocus efforts on more specialized narrower fields that do have room for profit. Why sell a lot of cheap things to a ton of people when you can sell a few expensive things to a select group? When you have lots of clients you also have lots of customer service to deal with, which adds even more overhead.

Luckless wrote in post #18233934
Actually when overall sales go down you can raise your prices...

Dump the cheap useless low level stuff that is hard to make a profit with and sucks up a ton of resources, and refocus efforts on more specialized narrower fields that do have room for profit. Why sell a lot of cheap things to a ton of people when you can sell a few expensive things to a select group?

I like what you're saying. Essentially, camera makers aren't interested in every market opportunity and isn't going to set price points that are aimed at widening their market. It's a calculated risk, which may or may not prove to be detrimental in the long run if people walk away from the craft. The OP is simply included in the list of market casualties in this power play... perhaps his young son and his friends, too (but it's only an assumption that if prices were cheaper that they'd even be interested).

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18233854
This is actually exactly right (even though I think you were trying to be sarcastic).

.

You're right. The price of the 135L has plummeted from 600 to 900 pounds. Lucky us.

Nathan wrote in post #18233958
I like what you're saying. Essentially, camera makers aren't interested in every market opportunity and isn't going to set price points that are aimed at widening their market. It's a calculated risk, which may or may not prove to be detrimental in the long run if people walk away from the craft. The OP is simply included in the list of market casualties in this power play... perhaps his young son and his friends, too (but it's only an assumption that if prices were cheaper that they'd even be interested).

Exactly, majority of people looking at the cheap cameras are using phones now because of the connectivity and convenience they provide. The market for cheap cameras and cheap lenses has been swallowed up by the phone cameras...what's left is the higher end camera market which is much more price elastic and the camera manufactures will be using this elasticity to drive the prices up. They really don't have much choice

I rather doubt that the price of higher end camera gear will have a long standing impact on things, given that the 'hobby of photography' has never had the entry level market penetration that is does today.

Think back to the early 90s. How many teens to mid-20s had a camera like device with them on the average day? Now try to think about how many don't have a camera in their pocket.

How many of those people are sitting down to play with photography, experimenting and exploring it beyond exceptionally casual snapshots? How many of those are going to want 'a more serious camera' down the road? If they can't afford the newest latest and greatest, then they'll settle for something off the used market.

In the future if prices rise too far, and sales of the higher end slump, then companies will adjust and pivot again, and bring things back toward a centre line.

quickben wrote in post #18233169
My son doesn't know anyone his age (at home or at university) that is into photography other than what they do on their phones. I asked him why ? He said it's just too expensive. He's 21. I was around that age when I started getting into it. Are they alienating future customers ? I think they could be.

I bought my first camera (Canon AE-1, 50mm f/1.8 lens) while in college in 1977. Great hobby camera. I paid $240. That's about $1,000 in today's dollars.

Two years ago, I bought a refurbished 60D, and the 18-135 lens, for a total of about $600. Also a great hobby camera, and an excellent hobby lens. Both are much more capable than my AE-1, and my film cost is zero. Photography today just isn't terribly expensive. Your son's friends don't buy SLRs because they have all the camera they need in their pocket, not because it's prohibitively expensive.

moose10101 wrote in post #18233980
I bought my first camera (Canon AE-1, 50mm f/1.8 lens) while in college in 1977. Great hobby camera. I paid $240. That's about $1,000 in today's dollars.

Two years ago, I bought a refurbished 60D, and the 18-135 lens, for a total of about $600. Also a great hobby camera, and an excellent hobby lens. Both are much more capable than my AE-1, and my film cost is zero. Photography today just isn't terribly expensive. Your son's friends don't buy SLRs because they have all the camera they need in their pocket, not because it's prohibitively expensive.

Best analysis of the issue I've seen.

I remember lusting over the AE-1 Program about that time. That was top-shelf gear I just could not afford.

quickben wrote in post #18233838
This is what I'm talking about. Year on year since 2009-2010 camera sales (including lens sales) are dropping. Yet, in Europe atleast, Canon has increased prices by up to 50%. Really ?

I'll say it again, I know you can enjoy photography on the cheap. That's obvious. That doesn't take away from the fact that these price increases are putting people off from getting into it. Not just from my son's age group, either. A lot of people are just not willing to get int a hobby that will cost them the price of a decent second-hand car if they don't want to settle for used kit or entry-level.

Anyway I can see I've rattled everyone's cage, so before the handbags start flying, I'll concede that we're living in the golden age of photography, prices are plummeting and I've got my decimal point in the wrong place.

Happy shopping everyone.

There are very many aspects to pricing. Some are international economics....if the Euro goes down against the Yen, then all manufacturers eventually have to adjust prices. If Canon Europe pays more to Canon Japan HQ to buy cameras, if duties and tariffs for imports into the EU are escalated for some reason, at some point Canon Europe needs to bite the bullet and pass on the downside cost issues rather than to continue to swallow them. The result is higher prices on the same goods.

Then you have consumer sentiments...one hears on forums like POTN the members bellyache at times about different lenses. The 100-400mm push pull lens is one of them, for example. So Canon has to eventually address long term issues, in order to appease some of their long time users. Note how the 5DIV has appeased a lot of complainers about Sony being so much better in ability to capture in low light with little of the Canon banding; yet at the same time many Canon 5DIII owners fail to see sufficient benefits in moving to the 5DIV! Different stroke for different folks.

I certainly do not think we're in a Golden Age...after all, all camera sales have been dropping. And while Sony has not declined (like Nikon or Canon dSLR volume of sales), they certainly have plateaued after 2012. It would be interesting to see Sony figures in the 2015-2016 timeframe! But the point of your topic, the relative expense of photography for the hobbyist or enthusiast, seems not to be supported by fact. Perhaps your son's or your own perception of 'expense' being high is borne out of the fact that times are providing a good supply of income, but the relative costs of some things has increased to leave less discretionary spending cash on the table to buy photographic goodies. Even if a camera is priced at one week's median income, like it did in earlier times, maybe the fact that one has to spend so much more on petrol or to retire student debt or other significant expenses leaves less money available for the camera. And then there is the fact that many recent grads from university have not attained the 'median income' yet!

quickben wrote in post #18232923
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 ?

Hobbyists just need to find their own balance. In bike racing, which I've done for 24 years, I've never owned a set of "race wheels." There are some great $1000 wheelsets that are still too expensive for my interest. I've won races on my own handbuilt $500 wheelsets, with nothing but $2000 wheelsets in 2nd-5th place. I've also lost races by 2cm, where a $2000 wheelset would have made that difference in the final 200 meters. I'm ok with that loss -- my investment in the hobby is not as high as all competitors, and sometimes superior fitness and strategy aren't enough to overcome. I was never headed to pro racing anyway.

Now I have photography to contend with. I'm saving for three kids for college ($100K each, as a goal), and living a fairly frugal existence to ensure that my wife and I have a comfortable retirement after all of our hard work. So, I bought a 100-400 Mk I instead of a 400 f/2.8 for soccer. I'm drawing the line at an $800 used lens instead of a $6000 used lens. My shots reflect that decision, but I'm ok with it.

Same thing with my body. I bought a 1D3 when the used price hit $1100. I recently bought a 1D4 for the same price. How would you like to have a 1DX II for $1100? I'll have one for that price, and it will be awesome. It will also probably be December of 2022.

quickben wrote in post #18233169
What I'm asking is that in the current economic climate, should Canon really be replacing lens models with new ones that are more-or-less the same as the old ones and ask for twice the money for them ?

If you check the prices of those old models at their launch, they're just about the same price as the new models adjusted for inflation. I remember someone in these boards made a excel spreadsheet on most of canon's lens lineup based on lens/body prices, update cycles etc. and their prices as sold brand new no matter which iteration and didn't really have huge variances.

Photography has always been an expensive hobby, but not the most expensive hobby. For pros, it's a business investment so we buy what we need.

Yes, if you think photography is an expensive hobby, then you should go find see if you can find some motorboat owners who are willing to share their fuel and service expenses for a year...

I was down at a marina awhile back and randomly started chatting with a guy fuelling up his boat. He noticed the camera gear I was carrying (Refurbished 7D with probably my 85mm f/1.8) and said he had "No idea how anyone affords all that expensive camera gear." I had to laugh when I overheard the attendant telling the guy how much his several hundred dollar fuel bill came to...


In any hobby you establish a budget, ideally within your means, and set priorities in your life as to what you want to spend money on.

I would love to have a sail boat, a power boat for waterskiing and the like, a small aircraft, a small helicopter, some race cars and a private track, a load of firearms and all the targets and ammo I could want on a private range, a private observatory, and loads of high end computer stuff and more camera gear... Realistically I settle for a bunch of decent camera and computer gear and ignore the rest because they just strain the budget far more than I can accept.

Expensive is relative. Relative to what you want to spend, and relative to the importance you place on your 'hobby'. I spend lots (another relative term) of money ($15k ?) on camera gear, because I shoot my cameras a lot. I spend little (another relative term) money on my guns. My $400 Mossberg shotgun and $300 Rock Island .45 are quite sufficient for my needs. I fully trust all my gear to get the job done when the need arises.

Luckless wrote in post #18233974
How many of those people are sitting down to play with photography, experimenting and exploring it beyond exceptionally casual snapshots?

Did you mean "exceptional casual snapshots" or simply "exceptional snapshots?" I have a sister-in-law who just bought a 5D4, 24-70II, 70-200II, 600EX and Prophoto B2 for her first ever SLR set up. She came from a Canon G9 on green Auto mode and a couple of iPhones. Either the technology has made it easier, but she takes decent exposures holding the 5D4 in front of her like a smartphone and adjusting settings on the touch screen. She's shooting on M and has mastered using ISO to get the right exposure... her images look cleaner than mine.

Point is... she's in the demographic that wants exceptional snapshots and (apparently) has the money to buy gear on a whim. I'm sure it will expand has her skills improve. I'm getting the feeling that she'll get more artistic has she continues to "experiment" in her own way... she may never learn the "right" way that most of us do it, but the expensive technology has made it easier for her to access the hobby in a different way. She doesn't have to think or respond as critically to achieve a clean image if the JPEGs she's getting from the camera are usable up to at least 32,000 ISO. She's able to see on screen what the final image will look like directly on screen, so there's no guessing for her. Autofocus is pretty darn smart, too.

In addition to professionals, Canon's target demographic isn't hobbyists. It's people with a lot of disposable income, hobbyists among them.

Y'Know... It's getting harder to explain to people it's not the camera, it's the photographer. Now, every hobbyist thinks he can be a professional. Every casual shooter, with the right technology, can be a hobbyist, too.

Snapshots taken in an exceptionally casual way, with little to no thought or effort put into them?

You can take excellent photos with any imaging device if you care to put the time and effort into it.

Many people I know will happily whip their phone out, point in the general direction of 'the interesting thing', and then tap the screen to get a photo regardless of framing or how blurry the image becomes.

Others will take more time to look and evaluate the scene, carefully frame, and adjust things as needed to achieve a far better image. It really doesn't take much additional effort to greatly improve a photo. A little more care, and attention to detail and timing, and it becomes easy to produce lovely photos that are still very casual in nature. Family photos. Selfies with friends. The sort of thing people take to document their life and help share memories.

This I would contrast to far less casual photography (like what many on this forum go after). More planning. Scouting, research, prep. Even more care and attention to detail. Going into something with a clear plan and set of goals for what kind of images you want to produce.


People who advance beyond the overly casual snapshots do tend to migrate to gear more suited to the task than a smartphone, but not everyone does. Personally I would love if my smart phone had more nods towards being an actual camera with regards to physical design than it does. Frankly I find it kind of a pain to use because of how fiddly it is to hold. That alone has been a big part of why I lug a real camera around a lot of the time.