Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

Reply
Thread Tools

When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012

"David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> 2x


Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
margins!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012

"R. Mark Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>> --
>> David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/

>
>
> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
>
> so four to five times really but definitely for FF and for APS
> size.


But the market for a FF camera with the lowest levels of focussing speed,
continuous shooting speed, metal used for chasis, lack of weather sealing,
and every other feature the FF camera's have that the very cheapest APS
SLR's don't have, would be very limited indeed. At least David is comparing
camera's that are fairly similar. You might as well compare the cost of a FF
DSLR with a P&S in your example!
However even twice the camera price is rather more than the actual sensor
price difference by 4 to 5 times at least!!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
In rec.photo.digital Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x


> Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
> keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
> margins!


Doesn't the price of any camera depend on two quantities, firstly the
development and setting up production line costs, which are fixed,
secondly the marginal cost of producing one more camera off the line?
In which case the price will vary a lot depending on how many they can
sell. This is epecially the case for sensors, quite apart from yeild
differences once the production line is running.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Mark Clayton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> >> >>
> >> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
> >>
> >> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
> >> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

> >
> > wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
> > dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
> > some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

>
> You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.


depends on the lens and the focal length.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Mark Clayton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> >> 2x

> >
> > Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer
> > to keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
> > margins!

>
> Yes - well someone needs to break the mould!
>
> 1972 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator (HP35) 600 ~= 6k today
> 1975 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator 200
> 1988 - 10 digit graphical scientific pocket calculator 80
> 2005 - 10 digit scientific pocket calculator 1 in the pound shop


once again you're comparing different feature sets. the hp-12c (still
sold!) is about $70 us, not much cheaper than it was back in the 1980s
when it originally came out.
<http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/c.../storefronts/1
2C%2523ABA>

> OTOH with my 12Mp phone camera as an example, the writing is on the wall for
> Kodak and the low end point and shoot camera market is faltering... Most
> smart phones pack 5-8Mp and will take quite good snaps. Time for this
> technology to bring down the price of FF SLR's


the first full frame slr was the canon 1ds in 2002 for $8000. the canon
5d followed a few years later at around $3500. the nikon d700 is $2700
right now (and probably will be less after the d800 ships).

meanwhile, they're selling everything they make, including the crop
sensor cameras for less, so obviously the prices are just fine where
they are. there's no point in dropping it any further at this time.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2012
"R. Mark Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>>>> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>>>> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm
>>>> >> on
>>>> >> full frame.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the
>>>> > number
>>>> > of pixels.
>>>> >
>>>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
>>>> > smaller
>>>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay for one with a full frame
>>>> > sensor (as opposed to ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>>>> > area is
>>>> > a rip off.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>>>
>>> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

>
> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.


> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
>
> so four to five times really but definitely for FF and for APS
> size.


But that's comparing unrelated models. It tells us as much as comparing
mirrorless cameras to 4x5 digital backs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2012
"R. Mark Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:170220122022340993%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Mark Clayton
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
>>> >>> > smaller
>>> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay for one with a full
>>> >>> > frame
>>> >>> > sensor (as opposed to ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>>> >>> > area is
>>> >>> > a rip off.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>>> >>
>>> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
>>>
>>> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
>>> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

>>
>> wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
>> dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
>> some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

>
> You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.


Depends on the lens and the focal length. The Tokina 12-24/4 DX lens
actually covers FF out to about 18mm, for example (one I tested
myself).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2012
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x

>
> Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
> keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
> margins!


What is the actual difference in sensor prices? And what's your source
for it?

I think you're vastly over-simplifying how pricing a line of modern tech
products is done.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2012
R. Mark Clayton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Mark Clayton


>>> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)


>>> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
>>> Canon 330 1700
>>> Nikon 430 1840
>>> Sony 290 1850


>>> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
>>> size.


>> bogus comparison.


>> the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
>> (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
>> features in the higher end full frame bodies.


>> for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
>> internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
>> point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
>> between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.


> Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££ as
> well.


Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).

This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.


Compare that to the D3x ($7600), one 32GB CF card
($50-$200), one card reader ($10), and 3*1.5TB HDs (one for
storage, 2 for backup, for 50,000 shots at ~28 MB/shot:
3*$100-$300).

Photo editing software, printing of photos, lenses, flash, studio
rooms, models, location costs etc. is assumed to be needed for
both variants.


So the ownership cost if a pro full frame film SLR versus a
highest end full frame DSLR from Nikon is:
SLR DSLR
Body 3,000 7,600
50,000 frames >7,000 <510
100,000 frames >14,000 <810
transfer to computer 2,000 + time 10 + seconds
simple longterm archival $,$$$ 600 for 5 years
675 for 10 years
685 for 15 years
690 for 20 years
720 for forever
======= ======
12,000 8,180
+ archival including archival

And one would assume the extremely low frame count per storage
medium, the additional cost and time in using a scanner to convert
to a computer manipulatible format, the time to change the storage
medium (especially as it's needed so often), the extra time and
cost in development (can't just let the computer churn through
the RAW queue or use out-of-camera JPEGs, not even for a first
sorting), the non-reusable media, the media cost, etc. would
drive down the price of an analogue camera.

The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
was FREE!

> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.


Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?


-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2012

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Mark Clayton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

>
> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?


I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make that
the retail price should be over $1k more. If you think it adds more to their
manufacturing cost than building one of their cheaper DSLR's with a couple
of kit lenses, you're crazy! They have simply made a choice to keep that end
of the market more exclusive with lower volumes and higher profit margins,
same as nearly every manufacturer does. Have a look at the cost of some cars
where a better engine and a few extra toys can add $50k to the cost of a
$50k car. THAT's where they *really* make a killing, not on the basic
models.
Whether YOU *think* it's worth $1million extra is irrelevant to their actual
costs.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Helping People!!!!!!!!!!!! celeste96795@aol.com Java 1 06-11-2008 05:49 PM
Some people tell that at present, most web hosting servers supportall kinds of programming language, some people tell me that many web hostingserver don't support Java, What is the truth? Erwin Moller Java 3 05-07-2008 05:09 PM
people helping people......king kong, underworld 2, mi3, movie, dvd,music, games cam slade Computer Support 1 01-19-2006 06:07 AM
DVD Shrink: After Shrink to Hard drive, what's NEXT? hiddenat@lycos.com DVD Video 11 09-21-2004 01:41 AM
DVD Shrink: After Shrink to Hard drive, what's NEXT? Thanks!!!!!! hiddenat@lycos.com DVD Video 2 09-09-2004 11:45 PM



Advertisments