«

R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
> news:gclf19-...
>> R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:
>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
>>>> In article <D7-dnVEH->, R. Mark Clayton

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

>>>> bogus comparison.

>>> 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.

> What are you talking about -

What you can get today as new from the official channels: top level
analog SLRs. Entry level analog SLRs are no longer available that
way, were sold on a razors and blades model for both lenses and
especially film and cannot be compared without including film
costs, unless you are to comparing DSLRs without sensor.


> I meant a decent entry level full frame film
> SLR from Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax - they were £££ NOT ££££. Good
> technically, but not for the sort of hammer a pro would gie it working 8
> hours a day.

And what they were meant to do is today mostly done by compact
cameras, which are ££. And for most users they are better,
smaller and cost much less per frame.


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

> It would now, but ten years ago when film SLR's were still common.

Ten years ago, in 2002, we had the Canon 1D (APS-H, $5,500(?))
and Canon D60 (APS-C, $2,000). Sure, DSLRs were and still are
more expensive, BUT they don't need expensive analog material
and processing.


>>> 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?

> That's easier - I worked in IT and electronics.

So you're the one who can decide for
- hobbyists of all kinds
- professionals of photography of all kinds
- (rich) people who need status symbols
- collectors
(and the rest) which features they want and for what price?

> Even now the trade mags do
> regular tear downs on mobile phones, cameras, tablets etc.

Of course. They try to fit mobile phones, cameras, tablets
etc. into some scheme which they hope matches emough of their
readership and what doesn't fit ... is savaged.

However, what's important to a collector (and highly valued in a
collector mag) might well be given a roasting in a consumer mag.
What is important in a consumer mag may well be worthless to a
nature photographer. And what a nature photographer values may
be not good for a wedding photographer.

> Having
> established what is in it one can easily establish and price up a bill of
> parts.

Yup. One human body is worth $4.50[1].

But that's at best manufacturing costs (not even development
costs are included) --- not what something is worth to somebody.

> Sure a few extra buttons or a bit more meory might add $ or even $$
> to the price, but it is NOT going to add $$$$ even if you gold plate every
> bit.

The worth is not the sum of the parts.
How much worth is a pixel? A pixel is trivially to set or change
with about any drawing program, so it must be *extremely* cheap,
basically worth 0.00000000000000000000000000 USD.

How much worth is an 900x600 pixel photograph then --- say of
your wedding, your child or your long dead geat-grandparents?


> Anyway the key argument here is that commoditisation of point and shoot
> cameras and DSLR's (and mobile phones and PC's and laptops* and flat screen
> tellies etc. etc.) has arrived, but up till now none of the existing "posh"
> manufacturers has gone for volume and no new entrant has tried to break into
> the market (e.g. a lens manufacturer), although on the camera front the
> likes of Fuji have seen off Kodak in point and shoot and made a big dent in
> the exchangeable lens camera market with high quality fixed lens cameras.

The key argument here is that if *you* think you can do better,
you are welcome to convince investors, build cameras, be the
market leader in that area and become filthy rich.

The DSLR for less than $1000 is quite a few years old. I regularly
see ads for DSLRs for less than 400 EUR (inclusive taxes,
inclusive lens), and 500 EUR DSLRs with 2 lenses they *must*
be going for volume (and not fot high prices), making your claim
completely absurd.

-Wolfgang

[1] http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
news:508229-...
> Trevor <> wrote:
>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>>> R. Mark Clayton <> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, that view is not compatible with a *demand*
> and *supply* based economy. That view is compatible with a
> "worth is how hard it is to make" based economy, which is not
> common with a free market (even though many think such a view is
> inherently fairer).
> Still, it's not a question of "how hard it is to make" but "how
> valuable is it to the *actual* buyers"


Exactly, it's NOT really "worth" a grand more, but if you can get enough
suckers to pay it, then that's the capitalist way. Fortunately some
companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level of
sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.

Trevor.

Trevor <> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>> Trevor <> wrote:
>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>>>> R. Mark Clayton <> 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.

>> Unfortunately, that view is not compatible with a *demand*
>> and *supply* based economy. That view is compatible with a
>> "worth is how hard it is to make" based economy, which is not
>> common with a free market (even though many think such a view is
>> inherently fairer).
>> Still, it's not a question of "how hard it is to make" but "how
>> valuable is it to the *actual* buyers"

> Exactly, it's NOT really "worth" a grand more,

Worth is determined by what price buyers and sellers agree upon.

> but if you can get enough
> suckers to pay it, then that's the capitalist way.

The alternative is deciding worth by decree, or defining by
time used (from extracting and making and transporting all
the materials over all the time spent in developing --- and of
course all the time spent by the designers, workers, specialists,
etc. in developing their skills ...).

The former doesn't work and the latter has little if any incentive
to develop other products, there's little or no way to make more
money (needed to attract investors, needed to develop products that
may or may not make money in the end (actually, most developments,
inventions, etc. do *not* make money, lots don't even lead to a
product!)) ...

Additionally the latter would indicate that most trade shouldn't
happen; the only price difference should be the transport costs
from source to sink; this doesn't happen in real life --- in
fact, whenever there's a shortness prices rise as supply and
demand change.


> Fortunately some
> companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level of
> sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
> exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.

So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.
Which companies do offer that, and do have a higher level of
sales?

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
news:a7p339-...
>> Fortunately some
>> companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level
>> of
>> sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
>> exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.
>
> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
> have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.

Can you point me to where I said that? But sure, some people may. That
market has yet to be tested.

> Which companies do offer that, and do have a higher level of
> sales?

Well the Canon 5D2 sells OK, so not everyone wanted a 1DS2. I see no reason
a FF equivalent of the 60D for example would not find a market as well. (if
not overpriced!)
(just using Canon as an example)
However that is not the issue, what I said was the profit margins are higher
on the professional camera's. Do you have evidence to dispute that?
I also said people DO have a choice to buy or not, at ANY price demanded.
That is the capitalist way. I never said it needed to change simply because
I'm not willing to pay the prices some people are.
(What's wrong of course is some people earn $Billions for doing little while
others earn little for working hard. Obviously the latter have to watch
their expenditure far more than the former)

Trevor.

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news: ...
>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
>
> Law of diminishing returns. If you want just a little better on the high
> end, it's gonna cost a lot more.

= Law of higher unit costs at lower production volumes, and more
particularly *higher profit margins*.

The continual argument here however simply seems to revolve around the
definitions of "worth" Vs cost.

Trevor.

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news: ...
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
>> have*any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.
>
> Yeah, that would be nice but then you'd have an expensive sensor on a
> cheap body that broke in three years and that'd be frustrating too.

Since I know people still using 300D's, (and I have a 350D in my collection
that still works fine) I'd say that argument is ill founded. Not every one
takes 50,000 photo's per year with one camera, or uses their camera to drive
nails! So not every one wants the most expensive camera money can buy, but
many DO want good photo's occasionally.
(and purchasing extended 5 year warranties is common place now in any case)

Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of that
market is still unknown.

Trevor.

In article <jjp22d$1g9$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of that
> market is still unknown.

i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
d3000 or rebel would be. meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full
frame cameras.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:130320122128124685%...
> In article <jjp22d$1g9$>, Trevor <>
> wrote:
>
>> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
>> that
>> market is still unknown.
>
> i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
> d3000 or rebel would be.

I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same thing
as "knowing quite well".


>meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.

And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!

Trevor.

On 14/03/2012 6:57 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "nospam"<> wrote in message
> news:130320122128124685%...
>> In article<jjp22d$1g9$>, Trevor<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
>>> that
>>> market is still unknown.
>>
>> i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
>> d3000 or rebel would be.
>
> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same thing
> as "knowing quite well".
>
>
>> meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
>
> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
>
Didn't Sony get damned close to that price with the @850?

Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a
36x24mm sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are
included, that equates to about $1500 retail, which doesn't leave much
for the rest of the camera, and seems consistent with the rumour that
Sony made a loss on all the @850s sold.

"Me" <> wrote in message
news:jjpd04$3d2$...
> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
> that equates to about $1500 retail,

I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)
And lets face it most people these days only trust Canon and Nikon to still
be around when they want to upgrade the body, without buying all new lenses,
flashes etc. And that is even more important for the amateur end than
professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales. Canon
and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their profit
margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
canibalising sales.

Trevor.