« Music Note | Main | More about That Cheap $4,000 Camera »

Monday, 31 July 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Isn't it as simple as 'money has to be made on much fewer units than in the past' in combination with 'no cash cow entry level layer that sponsors the R&D of the trickle-down-top-layer any more'?

The Z6ii is plenty camera for my needs, but was the most expensive camera I ever purchased new.

BTW. Where do you think the Z6ii is in this eco system? Apparently on the fourth level: Z9, Z8, Z7ii, Z6ii.

If using your F100 analogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F100), would that make a Z6ii equivalent to a Nikon N55 (F55) which was on the fourth level in 2003?
That doesn't sound right.

I look at the cost of new cameras and just baulk; they are very expensive to my mind. I am still happily using ten + year old cameras that are sufficient for me. If I lost one I'd simply buy another second-hand for a fraction of new. I'd maybe even upgrade to an eight-year-old camera!

But I don't think it's just cameras. In the mid- 1980's I went to see Bruce Springsteen and it cost £40 as I recall. He now sells tickets for nearer £300, which I felt was very expensive.

I just checked an inflation calculator and £40 in 1985 is about £118 today, so maybe things are more expensive now.

Mid sixties:

Slice of pizza = 15 cents
Small soda = 10 cents
Subway token (1 way) = 15 cents
Candy bar = 5 cents

In 1973, I bought a Kawasaki motorcycle for school. It was a 90cc street bike and it cost $370 new. Being a kid that had a new toy, I became infatuated with all things motorcycles, so I used the resource of that era, the Guinness Book Of World Records to look up the most expensive production motorcycle. At that time, it was a fully police dressed Harley Davidson with all the accessories needed for a motorcycle cop. It cost $2500. In '73, I could not imagine how anyone could spend so much after spending so little on my bike. Today, walk into a motorcycle shop with $2500 and you will be ignored by the sales staff.

Regarding cameras, I have never bought a camera, even my 5 Leica M bodies with any thought about resale value. The value is in the photos that I can get with it. Today digital cameras have a much shorter life of desirability, so it's best not to overthink value as a monetary thing. If it let's you do what you need it to do, it has value.

I believe people form an idea of dollar value with their first serious job, i.e. a job that they could envision spending their life at. I'm old, and my first serious job was at the Miami Herald. I had two small children at the time (both pre elementary school) so we had to budget carefully,, and my wife, for a time, actually kept books. We budgeted $40 a week for food, for the four of us. Recently, my wife and I stayed at a nice hotel in London, and I spent slightly more than $300 for a meal, with wine, for two of us. When my children were small, I spent 35 cents a pack for cigarettes. You can now spend as much as $12 a pack (mostly taxes.) A gallon of gas was somewhere in the 40-cent range. Our first three-bedroom, two-bath house cost $32,000. People still think of being a millionaire as a big deal, but it isn't -- my children, living in L.A., bought houses a couple of decades ago that if sold now, would make them millionaires (although they'd have to move somewhere else to live, or spend their millions to get the same nice houses in California.) So, you really can't think of the dollar as a stable value; it's simply a marker of current value. I can't say I've ever gotten used to it. Last night, I watched "Risky Business," the 40-year-old Tom Cruise film, which features a Porsche 928, once my dream car. One of the characters, in disparaging Cruise's affluent lifestyle, refers to "your father's $40,000 car." You can now pay $43,000 for a Hyundai Santa Fe Limited.

I get the point of your Dartmouth example, but in my opinion college tuition is a bad measure of inflation. For one thing, the real cost of college, particularly an elite institution like Dartmouth has increased at more than inflation for a good long while. So your $3,900 tuition, assuming this was 1975 or thereabouts would be worth around $22K today in round numbers, not the $33K "discounted" cost if all that was involved was inflation's steady erosion of value.

Second, and I occasionally argue with my wife about this because she teaches at a comparable institution, is that the relationship between sticker price and the actual price is pure fancy at best and reflects lots of factors, including foreign students who pay full freight because they are not eligible for financial aid. As the parent of two college age kids, the entire thing feels like a shake-down -- more like negotiating for a used car than anything else, where the seller has vastly more information than the buyer. Add to this institutions' worries about the Veblen-ness of their goodness and it can feel a bit like getting mugged by a used car salesman with an inferiority complex. Feh.

/rant off

As to the main point, there are a couple of ways to look at this. How 'bout this: Is it worth thinking of a 52 MP camera like the Z8 as roughly equivalent to a pro medium format camera of yore? Say equal to the Hassleblad with some nice medium speed film? I think there were plenty of us, myself included, who felt that our snapshots would be granted an extra bit of special something by shooting with all that extra medium format goodness. I still have the kit to prove my own participation in that way of thinking. If that analogy holds then you aren't paying $4K for less-than-flagship, you are paying $4K to be in the same ballpark as the flagship, while scrimping a bit on the stuff that might not matter as much. (Whew, so many metaphors in one sentence...)

But in this analogy, your phone is the point-and-shoot you throw in a bag for a weekend trip, and the Z8 is what you take on a once-in-a-lifetime trip or when going to coffee to impress your photo-friends.

I recently went to the recently re-funked (opposite of defunct) dpreview.com camera comparison page and looked at the studio scene comparison differences between my Pentax K1 (36 MP) and the Z9 (50-something MP) and dang if the differences weren't pretty clearly visible.

For my specific needs (who am I kidding, needs - no; desires - yes) I got a Fuji something or other (same one Kirk Tuck recently got).

Roughly the same as the Nikon, and the kit lens.

Of course, in absolute terms, the Nikon probably wins in just about every empirical category, but I really like that Fuji for when weight is not an issue.

Hopefully, when I am committing 10 minutes to getting set up, I will take more than one photos.

Also, I'm using a couple old Mamiya RZ lenses with it, and the pictures look really nice. There is no doubt in my mind, the RZ lenses on the Z8 would suck! That's my (sunk cost) story and I'm okay with that.

I'm feeling better about my iPhone by the day.

This kind of pricing is a self full-filling prophesy as far as a shrinking camera market goes. I guess we'll see if the low end models will sell enough, I'm skeptical that they will. The expensive models will sell to a small market, and I guess we'll see how sustainable that will be over time.

I'm reminded of the path high fidelity stereo systems have taken since the advent of the iPod.

I find myself comfortable with "last camera syndrome (Concept courtesy of Thom)." I have a Fuji X-T4 and 3 lenses, but the camera I use most is my iPhone, and I have no interest in upgrading my Fuji gear.

I still have fun with the X-T4, but the iPhone is always with me, in my pocket, super easy to use and fun. And it's economical since I will always need a phone, such is our world.

Value is always in the eye of the beholder.

You may want to wait for zf the z full frame old style (not zfc which is dx or Apsc and not the f version of that old style). 2 aug and see how this go. You do not chase little bird might be z8/9 is something you do not need.

Thom Hogan says "past models depreciate far faster in value than people think, to the point where there's little value in a five-year-old camera left".

The nice thing about objects with little value left is that there's nothing left to depreciate. That means depreciation cost (the main cost of owning things) is nearly 0.

Since 5-year old cameras are largely well past the point of sufficiency (I rarely feel like my X-E2 is the limiting factor and see no need to "upgrade" it), I think more of us should be exploring the KEH used bins for sufficient cameras from the 16MP era and beyond. That, of course, wouldn't be great news for Nikon, or TOP's revenue. And, paradoxically, it would probably drive up both the price of used gear (increased demand over a fixed supply) and new Nikons (reduced purchase count across which to spread R&D cost).

Inflation, market shrinkage, are all major factors.

And, short term, within the digital era, they're the main factors (along with "what we can get away with").

For us old folks, though, the other thing to remember is that until the early 90s camera bodies were simply, just a lens mount and a film transport mechanism and a shutter and a viewfinder (and maybe an exposure meter). Then they acquired auto-focus, which required complex mechanics (for SLRs; partially-silvered mirror spots and hinged sub-mirrors on the back!) and electronics (phase-detect auto-focus sensors in the bottom of the body, and the electronics to use them to drive the lens focusing mechanism).

Then, in the digital era, the cameras also acquired a built-in lifetime supply of film and processing! That kicked the prices up a lot, especially at first, and was bad news for low-volume photographers, but pretty decent news for high-volume photographers; the film and lab costs of even 100 rolls a year was around $2000 (varying widely depending on lab choice). (Also people who didn't already have computers had to buy them, too, and suitable software.)

But I do remember buying my Leica M3 with collapsible 50mm Summicron for $250 used, and my 90mm Summicron for $360 new, and my 35mm Summicron for $240 new from a local store, yeah, so I'm a bit shocked by a $4000 body myself. Beyond my means these days.

(My D700 was almost that much in 2009 dollars or whatever, but it was an extreme high-end body at the time, and I could only afford it then by selling a lens that had appreciated unreasonably while I owned it and didn't use it much.)

In 2014 I bought a Nikon D810 for 2900 USD (3700 USD adjusted for inflation).

I have used it happily until this spring when we both took a tumble on solid concrete.

9 years of good usage, 300 USD per year. Streaming platform subscriptions are almost as much per year and they have provided me less enjoyment than the D810.

I plan on buying a Nikon Z8 for ~4000 USD this winter. When looking at what it gets me over the D810, it seems good value for money, especially if I can avoid more tumbles and get 8-10 years of usage out of it.


In Canada the Z8 is going for $5,399. My income hasn't gone up at all since I purchased my D800e shortly after they came out. They'll be no Z8 in my future I'm afraid.

Personally I give great thanks for depreciation and only wish that Leica depreciated as quickly as Nikon!

I can look this month:
Nikon F4 - bought this month for $116
Nikon D810 - bought this month for $680
and I have F mount lenses from 20/2.8 to 200/3.8 in various primes, zooms, AF & MF. Most of them don't play nice with the FTZ adapter because they're screwdriver AF-D lenses - optically superior to the more recent AF-S as well as significantly cheaper on eprey ;)

So for me, the question of moving to the Z mirror-less platform is a non-starter.

To give me a similar capability as what I have in my bag with my D810 right now would cost me:

Z8 $3,995
Z24-120/4 $1,095
Z50/1.8 $629
Z20/1.8 $1049

Certainly I understand what Mr Hogan has to say (his older work convinced me to go for the 810 rather than the 750 since I could not afford either the 780 or 850 anymore than I could a Z system) but reality intrudes. If I want to "upgrade" to full-frame, which for me is mostly for being able to use my wide angle lenses appropriately, from my otherwise still acceptable D7100 DX body, one has to consider budget and limitations.

The Z8 is a beautiful camera and certainly represents a logical way into the future. That said, not all of us are able to follow that way.

"Kinda like spending $100,000 on a Boxster and having people look down their noses at you because you can't afford the good Porsche."

Didn't like the Boxster, I drove one around a bit back back when it cost about half that. I liked my '71 911 quite a lot — wouldn't want one now, though.

Just had all new front brakes, including calipers, put on my '95 Olds Cutlass Supreme convertible, A/C and cruise control fixed.

New top sometime soon, I suppose. Every once in a while, I check into new convertibles. The combination of power, roominess and a real trunk doesn't seem to exist. I'll stay with my old love . . .

'My other question this morning is that "little" problem with Nikon's new Z8.'

My problem with it is that it is far from "little"


[Click on photo to see it on camerasize.com.]

I may be a little in love with the Sony A7C. As I only use FF for vintage and Alt lenses (LensBaby, etc.), 24 MP is quite enough. As the lenses are all manual, I don't need two adjustment wheels. And the ergonomics are just right for me.

My other A7 bodies have gone to the great recycler in the sky, near Atlanta.

In 2017 or thereabouts, the price of a Leica M6 hovers around $1200-$1500, now it's $3000-$5000.

The price of the M10 was $6500 then, and now as low as low $3000s.

Draw whatever conclusion from it :-)

Usually aggressive is something bad. Don’t know why aggressive pricing is considered cheap. Maybe Nikon is pricing aggressively towards it’s customers. But that seems to be the trend now in everything. At least everything camera related. Digital sort of gave the manufacturers an excuse to raise their prices across the board. And then mirrorless another excuse to do it again. Electronics are generally cheaper than high precision mechanical parts. But the opposite applies in film vs digital cameras. (Yes, I understand there are exceptions. And the latest high end sensor will be expensive.)


$4000 is expensive? You must be kidding.

For your money, you get:

- Dynamic range of some ridiculous number of stops (I've long stopped even looking). Compare: half stop on E6!

- Usable ISO up to some isane amount. Compare: ISO 400 in C41 and push, and then, well, hope for the best. Good luck finding a lab who can push film without mucking it up.

- Medium format quality -- in a handheld package! That uses a crazy number of some of the best lenses ever made! But wait! Add an adapter and use *almost any lens you want*!

- INSTANT viewing of your dialed in settings on the EVF! Tough lighting situation? No problem. What you see is what you'll get! Not enough looking at it prior to exposure in the EVF? Hit the shutter release and your BUILT IN LAB will show you the results on a high resolution display -- right ON THE CAMERA! No more snip tests at the lab (does your lab even know HOW to do a snip test?).

- No more sitting at home for -- DAYS scanning film and retouching out dust spots. Even with Digital ICE... so ... much ... dust. All that time scanning and retouching? Not billable, so as you pour another cup of coffee and .... wait. For. The. Scanner. Wrrrrrr. You are losing money.

- Worried about the size of your Domke bag? I'm not the only film guy hauling 20+ rolls around at a time. Woo! 20 rolls is 720 frames! Let's go shoot! Not so fast, hot shot -- any decent memory card for a camera can now hold THOUSANDS of frames, and there's no need to haul around a cooler in the car to keep stock cold. And you can change ISO mid-roll! And even switch between color and black and white! And even MAKE MOVIES! (No film bag required)

- Not enough? Let's do some quick math, for those of us still shooting film in production: Roll of E6 ($20) + processing ($10) + postage (FedEx, because otherwise good luck ... $20... for 20 rolls in a box). Total for 20 rolls: $620 / 720 frames = 87 cents per frame. Yes, that's right -- it's now nearly going to cost you a BUCK per frame for slide work. Thankfully, being a pro photographer pays the big money! (ha ha ha ha..... I kid.)

So... JUST using the hard numbers from film: $4000/0.87 = 4597 frames to break even / 36 frames/roll = 128 rolls. Which is about 2-3 weeks worth of work.

At which point you have a free camera, AND all those features listed above still apply!

These cameras are the best deal going. People don't know how good they have it. Even a $9000 Leica still looks like a bargain if you use it hard the way its intended to be, for 10 years. (Contrary to the baloney deli that is the modern Internet, no one needs more pickles every few years. The D700 in my bag still brings in the money.)

Those of us shooting film are doing it for (usually) specialized reasons, but when I get to do a job digitally, a whole WORLD of trouble just goes away.

$4000 looks like an absolute bargain.

Price (market value) and value, are developing in interesting ways.

As I am a Sony user, I find it most simple to illustrate this using the Sony line-up using the A7r family.


The Sony A7r line (I to V) was introduced in 2013. The original introduction price was 2299 USD. In 2015 the A7r II was introduced. Corrected for inflation, the price of this camera was about 800 USD higher than the A7r. The models thereafter saw more modest price increases, with the 4199 USD A7r V being only 175 USD more expensive in real terms compared to the A7r II.

Still the A7r IV in my view feels like a much more expensive camera than the A7r II.

This is can be explained in two parts in my view:
We do not compare the introduction price of a camera when making a purchasing decision, but the actual retail prices. Consider for instance that in 2018 the A7r II could be bought new, for around USD 2000 or less (I bought mine for USD 1300 in that year). The A7r III was still trading at USD 3200. So although the introduction price in real terms was a reduction of USD 50, the retail price was an increase between USD 1200 to 1900. Was there enough innovation to explain these price differences?
Well, that depends. One can assume that Sony plans to recoup the research and development costs (including setting up production lines) quite early on in the life of the new model, as new models are introduced after two years already. These costs of the camera are actually fixed; they do not increase if more cameras are produced. So after the fixed costs have been recouped, prices can start dropping. Also one can assume that production costs in real terms will decrease as the lines become more optimised and production in general will become more efficient. One can see this in the A7r II, as it was retailing after two years at around 50% of its introduction price.
Now, did Sony invest so much in the A7r III development, that it was necessary to increase the price again to almost the level of the A7r II at introduction? I do not think so, unless the expected volume of the A7r III was much lower than the A7r II. Or did Sony increase the price because the market is bearing it, and it can bolster its profits? I do not know. I can just tell, the innovation in the A7r III was very expensive from a consumer perspective, in my mind.

Looking at the second-hand camera market things become really interesting. A like-new Sony A7r II today retails at USD 1300. So an absolute depreciation of 59 dollars in 4 years for my camera. Assuming an interest rate of 4%, the actual costs are around 200 dollars. So, this camera has cost me USD 50 per year so far. Consumers can actually sell this camera for this price in the consumer market (E-bay or other classifieds).

So is the Nikon aggressively priced? Potentially, if Nikon expects to sell not too many of them (which given the price, and the fact that cameras have to compete with phones, is not unlikely). Is it priced attractively? That really depends on the value you as a consumer stick to the innovations that Nikon provides compared to alternative choices you have (new or used). For me, I just bought my 4th Sony A7r II (two got lost in an incident). It does everything I need, although I would love a touch-screen. A touchscreen does not warrant the price increase between an A7r II and A7r III for me. I can buy a small wide-angle for that money, same price, but way more value. I really want that lens I guess.


Oh, that... And its size?

As the mirrorless upper end and the slightly larger than FF 'medium format' rush inexorably to higher Mb sensors, 50 to 60 Mp seems to be the new norm. (Although the z8 is a mere 45.7 Mp).

However, I read in Ctein's May 2023 newsletter that he will probably stay with Olympus micro 4/3 as it is sufficient for his needs. Sufficient for one of the great all-time printers who goes way beyond A3. Food for thought.

There may be also something called aggressive hidden pricing that can be exploited. Let me explain.

Leica as we know uses a Veblen good pricing model. It appeals to those that want to feel they have the best, so long as it costs twice more than the Nikon/Canon/Sony equivalent.

Yet here is how the SL2-S full-frame is ACTUALLY priced (real-world example, I'm not immune to the Leica charm, but don't want to feel like a dumb sucker):

Retail bundle with the 35/2 or 50/2 lens, $6,300.
"Discount" check from Leica: $1,400.
Sell lens on eBay (lots of sales at $1,500)
Real body cost: $3,400.

As an aside, I put the Sl2-S and the Z8 into the camera size comparison, and the SL2-S is both shorter and 10% lighter! Again in real life, the SL2-S feels large but not too large, and paired with a trio of Sigma Contemporary lenses (24/3.5, 45/2.8 and 35/2) that cost less all together than the coupled 35mm Leica lens, it's a nice package.

I don’t think it’s just you. I’m interested in Canon’s new AF tracking so I’ve been looking at their new mirrorless bodies to find a replacement for my ancient but much loved 6D. I’m finding that prices seem high to me too and discounts are hard to come by. My Canon 6D had an MSRP of $2,100 in 2012 and I bought it a year later for $1,573 from B&H. I don’t expect to find that kind of discount on a newish model in todays camera market. Canon’s current mirrorless 6D replacement is the R6 Mark II which has an MSRP of $2,500 which is about right considering the 6D’s MSRP plus a decade of inflation but I would prefer to again pay around $1,500 for my next camera which means I will need to settle for a lesser model.

Canon recently released the FF R8 for $1,500 which at first blush looks interesting. It has the same sensor and AF as the R6 Mark II but it lacks IBIS, a joystick, has a low resolution viewfinder and uses a battery that is positively puny. I can understand the need to differentiate between models but it’s aggravating to see a manufacturer deliberately hamstring a new, power hungry mirrorless camera with a substandard battery. I have to believe this was done to sell more overpriced, chipped batteries. We’ve seen overpriced, chipped consumables before in inkjet printers and we all know how that went. The downturn in the camera market seems to be sucking some of the joy out of acquiring and using a new camera for me. As the manufacturers clamor for profit I find myself losing interest. I’m an enthusiast who has always bought new but now I’m thinking I need to start buying used. Having to make aggravating compromises on how to power an electronic camera that for me is a $1,500 toy I don’t really need is a tough pill to swallow.

I think the example of Kodak should be remembered. They led the way in professional level digital cameras, the price of which amazed everyone (or, at least me). With the transition of the general public to cell phone photography, can selling pro/advanced amateur cameras at such high prices be sustainable? In the past, consumer cameras supported the higher end stuff and that is history.
Are Nikon and Canon trying to emulate Leica in hoping their cameras will retain a greater after purchase value so that buyers will find it more affordable to upgrade to newer models? While it has worked for Leica, there have been ups & downs that were barely survivable.

I'm sorry, but could you remind me how much your current monochrome rig costs?

Now you know why I rarely buy the current model. My latest camera purchase was a used Canon 5D Mk. III, which I bought just last Fall. It has all the useful features that made it a great camera when it was new. Even my beloved Pentax 645z had to be discounted to half its original price before I would buy it. Sadly, that may prove to be a dead end, but hopefully Pentax will be able to support it for many years to come. It is still a great camera by any measure.

The Nikon Z8 and Z9 are cameras optimized for sports and fast moving nature photography. If you want similar, if not slightly better picture quality, and you don't require a massive frame rate and Ferarri autofocus, the Z7 and Z7II offers that for basically half the price of a Z8.

To go one step further, if sports and nature is your niche, you'd probably be better served with a Z9 with its built-in vertical grip. The Z8 with an accessory vertical grip is even bulkier than a Z9. For sports and nature you're gonna want a vertical grip. In my thinking, a strong case can be made for skipping the Z8 altogether.

I have never bought a Nikon or Canon product and never will. There's much better value to be found elsewhere. Check out what you get for your money with the Lumix S5, the best value hybrid camera today. (Though if you are not interested in video, there may be better choices.)

Interesting that you use Porsche as an example. They probably would not be in business at all if they relied on sports car sales. The SUVs are their money-makers.

A new Pentax K1 II with battery grip kit is still below $1,950. Camera only is around $1,800.

Still plenty of resolution for me. Nice, clear viewfinder, decent-enough battery life (especially with the accessory battery grip and a second battery.)

IBIS from the beginning and has the best compatibility of any manufacturer with old lenses.

I only held out to buy it because of my full frame manual lenses.

More costly are the ongoing computer hard drive size upgrades and backup drives.

Two new lenses and a used 24mm f/2.0 from KEH.

With all that, and accessories such as a spare charger and spare batteries, I've probably spent around $3,000.

So, not the best autofocus or throughput, but good enough for me.

As Mitch Krupp commented, our incomes haven't matched the rise in prices, so I'll stay with the camera that works just fine for me.

I just don't see that as a high price. In absolute (non-adjusted) numbers it's pretty close to the 2015 launch price of the Canon 5Ds R and half that of the 1Ds...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007