Camera costs are misleading and under-estimated

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 10, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Why? Because inevitably, in order to read the RAWs (with a program you
    can stomach, as opposed to the junk they pack with the cameras) you
    will no doubt have to upgrade your Photo Shop or Light Room because
    Adobe ceases any upgrades to Camera Raw when they release a new
    interation of PS or LR. So add around $99-$199 to the cost of each
    new camera...The last four cameras I bought necessitated upgrading
    PS. But I'll put up with the financial issue to avoid Silky Pix, or
    Nikon's software.
    RichA, Mar 10, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    ufraw and one of the many front ends for it? Its a good price.
    Peter Chant, Mar 10, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    More inaccurate informarion, based upon a half truth and gross
    distortions. Do you have the slightest comcept of what it takes to
    run a business?
    Peter N, Mar 11, 2011
  4. RichA

    ray Guest

    Why would I do that? UFRAW works perfectly fine and is usually ahead of
    the curve on new formats - and it's free open source software.
    ray, Mar 11, 2011
  5. RichA

    otter Guest

    Adobe has a free RAW converter, if you don't want to upgrade.
    otter, Mar 11, 2011
  6. RichA

    charles Guest

    And a house to keep it all in. Major cost.
    charles, Mar 11, 2011
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    It's only throw away because they want something better next week,
    month or year.

    I don;t think that's true teh evolution of man made prodicts just
    to be faster than  biological evolution, it started with factory
    then on to industrialisation .
    You can still plough fields by hand or peel your own potatoes.
    You can pick and grow you're own fruit and veg too.
    As for camera you don't have to use the latest DSLR you can still use
    old DSLRs or even old camera my A1 still works even the battery that's
    been in it 6 years now still seems OK.
    My first digital camera a was 320X240 and could store ~15 images, if I
    could find it, it might still work.
    So don;t buy then it's the buyers choice.
    There's very little in life you are forced to buy.

    it's because you want to that's all.

    Why do you need to keep buying camera bodies ?
    Whisky-dave, Mar 11, 2011
  8. RichA

    otter Guest

    Not arguing with Rich, just providing info.
    otter, Mar 11, 2011
  9. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Well not quite few trolls actually by the equipment, what use would
    they have for it
    if it does help them troll ?
    I don't think that''s true as ads would show this talent button if it
    why would they hide it.
    Well it does define what they can do, and sometimes what they can't.
    Ideally a persons skill should be comparable with the camera they own.
    You get this with most things in life.

    They could be, they might believe that buying a better camera has no
    on the photographs they take and that is even more wrong and foolish.
    Well when my dads eyesight started to fail he brought a camera that
    had auto focus
    and it did help him significantly when taking pictures that he wanted
    in focus.
    That's because it is true it can help, with focusing and exposure.
    Taking my datd as an example, he started his life in photography
    glass negatives and for some reason these pros back in the 40s could
    take a decent
    photo according to use that's why more advanced camera were designed
    because peole could take good photos.
    Which does make it an interesting challenge, if I were brave enough
    I'd set that as a shoot in mandate.
    See how well others could do taking photos with a blind fold on.

    developments have been made for disabled people as we or rather some
    of us realise
    that a disability doesn't make someone useless.
    Lets face it photographically you couldn't find anyone more useless
    than steven Hawkin.
    But with the age of modern technology he's been able to teach the
    world a thing or too
    about the universe something which you a fully sighted and non-
    disabled <cough> person
    can't do.

    well I haven;t seen that, so how would a blind person set the focus
    and exposure
    of an old style mechanical camera, i.e without electronics.....
    Why limit it to DSLR buys what about car buyers ?
    Do they think buying a new car will get them to work quicker or
    improve their IQ.
    Why do people buy cars I've never brought one, is it because people
    are to lazy to walk
    or physically disabled, I've been legless a few times myself.

    I'm not sure where you get that info from, but do you have any brown
    stains on your finger ?
    well I've not really noticed, and I'm not sure how long the SIs have
    been going,
    but it would be interesting to see the first ever SI and have a new SI
    to see if we can
    improve on those photos, but then you''ll have to define improve too.
    I'm not sure you're quite up to that task. I'm not saying I am
    either .

    Well considering you haven't provided any I'd say loads.
    well if there were we'd all end up taking the same shot in the same
    I think we know who's deluded.
    Whisky-dave, Mar 11, 2011
  10. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Looking for one with a talent-buttom must be why you own (or claim you
    own) several point-and-shoot cameras. Is talent not a chkdsk add-on?
    tony cooper, Mar 11, 2011
  11. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I've not noticed this 'never' before the present one of mich is
    though, but I didn;t check the exif data.
    I'd like to know how he got mich in the frame at all.
    I've tried framing band photos and without the stage lights I can
    hardly see a thing.
    I've tried walking at night in a place with no lights and that was
    scary, I couldn't even work out which direction I was
    facing, not sure how good a photo would have been even if I used
    Well if a lens is fixed focus you can't go far wrong all you have to
    do is
    the exposure and the framing correct, not sure how a blind person
    decide what exposure to set, I see sight pros and even amateurs use a
    meter, go up to the subject
    and take a reading via a needle or digital display, when I was 12 I
    didn;t need to do that
    I used the info on the pack that came with the roll of HP3.
    IIRC it said cloudy use F8 at 1/125th, they didn't have the leaflet in

    I remember looking at pro meters and they were very expensive still
    So why do pros need this help when I as a school kid didn't ?

    i.e you can't answer the points
    You don;t need to know the working temerature of LCDs to take photos.
    And you've yet to realise that's it's the other electronic systems
    that can fail
    below 0C that's important, the LCD just displays things you know, it
    doesn't set things.
    If they bring out touch sensitive LCDS and use that as a shutter or
    focus mechanism like
    they do with i{Pods then yes it will be important, but in electronic
    cameras it's more important that the
    processor and memory and related components are functioning properly
    rather than the LCD.
    I often turn my LCD off my G10 when photographing bands.

    Well when I wanted to take pictures underwater I brought a water
    resistant camera
    which worked fine, if I'd wanted to take it diving to 100 meters or
    more it would have most
    likely failed. So it's a good idea if you match the equipment to the
    environment you are taking
    photos in like the Mars rovers do who manage to take photos at
    temperatures far below anything on earth.
    -30C is common, I think -90C is about the lowest temp. the rovers have
    LCDs are not a necessity when taking photos.
    Whisky-dave, Mar 11, 2011
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    The DNG converter?
    Rich, Mar 11, 2011
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Half the junk YOU use can't even output a RAW image so you have no
    worries. You can use Microsoft Paint!
    Rich, Mar 11, 2011
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    OK You got me started on a mini rant.
    Too many consumers look for instant gratification, even at the risk of
    heavily paying for it tomorrow.
    Too many are either too lazy to do research, or to careless to care.
    Ever see someone in a supermarket buying items in the larger box where
    the per unit price is much less for the smaller box?
    How many people can't do simple arithmetic.
    (If oranges are 3 for a dollar, how much is two.)

    Most companies are only too happy to sell to consumers like that. Many
    moons ago I was buying a car with cloth seats. The salesman was offering
    to Scothguard the seats for only $200. He was dumbfounded when I told
    him I would buy a can of the stuff for $2.98 and do the job myself in
    about ten minutes. Most consumers don't think like that.
    PeterN, Mar 12, 2011
  15. RichA

    ben brugman Guest

    Photo Shop and/or Light Room do not affect camera cost.
    They do add nothing to the camera and are not needed for the camera.

    If you use them they do increase the price of the pictures, but then
    printing the pictures does also increase the cost, displaying the pictures
    in an electronic way also increases the cost of the pictures, so does some

    Most people do not buy Photo Shop or Light Room, this is true even for the
    people who buy camera's with RAW capabilities, but is certainly true for the
    mayority buying camera's.

    ben brugman, Mar 13, 2011
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    nonsense. it's not massive at all.
    they still can buy what the pros use. not all pros spend tens of
    thousands of dollars.
    actually a good camera body costs less than $700 (nikon d3100, canon
    550d) and even most pros don't need a $7000 body, they do just fine
    with something in the $1000-2000 range (nikon d7000, d300s, d700).
    nope. how many amateurs bought medium format film cameras? not many.

    the 'best gear they could afford' were 35mm bodies, and not the top of
    the line ones like the nikon f5 either. most bought low to mid-range
    slrs and budget lenses.
    nonsense. granted, a film camera could easily last 10-20+ years while a
    digital camera will be obsolete by then (but still work), however, 6
    months is absolute bullshit.

    not only that, the resale price is often not that much less than what
    it sold for new, depending on the camera. for instance, a 5 year old
    nikon d50 typically sells for about $200 on ebay, for a camera that
    cost about $500 new. that's pretty good for 5 years of use.
    actually you don't need to shoot that much at all to break even. at
    roughly $15 or so per roll (including processing), film costs add up
    very quickly.

    with digital, people are shooting a *lot* more photos as a result,
    because the cost is $0. for those who shoot panoramas, they might end
    up shooting 20-30 (or more) photos *per scene*, where if they were
    shooting film it would have been just a couple of shots, at most,
    because they'd never bother with a panorama.
    not only does it fully amortize, but it ends up being significantly
    cheaper with digital unless you shoot a couple of rolls per year, in
    which case a midrange film camera would be overkill, nevermind pro
    nope. low cost hd video cameras are giving amateurs a way to easily
    compete with pros. the canon 5d mark ii, for instance, has opened many
    doors, as well as even lower cost cameras like the flip. laptops are
    powerful enough to edit video on site. the iphone 4 can not only shoot
    hd video but editing the movie can be done on the phone itself and then
    uploaded somewhere. the price of equipment is coming *down*,
    Guest, Mar 13, 2011
  17. RichA

    Guest Guest

    pros generally use the best tools for the job, which does *not* mean
    the most expensive.
    they still can.

    you're assuming 'pro equipment' is 'the most expensive thing you can
    find.' it's not. sometimes small and unobtrusive is important (which is
    inexpensive), and other times high resolution is (which is typically
    to a certain extent, but a low end dslr is better than the film cameras
    they used to have.

    the difference between a d300s and a d3x is not anything anyone will
    notice at typical print sizes. only if you pixel peep or blow up the
    image to insanely huge sizes will anyone notice, something an amateur
    will rarely, if ever, do.
    it's true that film cameras were basically a light tight box that held
    film, but digital cameras are quite good. entry level canon dslrs are
    15-18 megapixels, much better than top of the line dslrs just a few
    years ago.
    upgrades happened with film too.

    people upgraded from the nikon f to f2 to f3 to f4 to f5 (nobody
    bothered with the f6). lenses gained autofocus, then gained
    stabilization, so those had to be upgraded too (twice). now there are
    crop sensor lenses, so yet another upgrade. flashes went from pure
    manual (f/stops and guide numbers, what fun) to ttl, and even switching
    to fill flash as conditions require. sometimes the flash protocols
    changed, so yet another upgrade or two. there is always something new
    to buy.
    only if you're satisfied with a camera that lacks autofocus, built-in
    metering and auto-winder, is limited to 36 pictures at a time and
    weighs a ton. nobody wants that anymore, which is why you don't see
    anyone using a nikon f, except maybe at an antique camera exhibit.
    nope. 35mm full frame digital slrs have matched or exceeded what medium
    format film could do for about a decade.

    a nikon d3x is *much* better than the above hasselblad, it's a lot more
    portable and it's only twice the price, not ten times. not only that,
    but a nikon d700 or canon 5d mark ii for *less* than $3500 will match
    or beat the hassy.
    nobody uses 50 year old cameras.
    actually lens costs are increasing, with autofocus, stabilization,
    built-in focus motors, exotic coatings and weather sealing. look at the
    price of nikon's 70-200 vr ii versus the original one.
    i still see people with ten year old digital cameras. they work fine.

    a 6 megapixel dslr from 8 years ago is more than adequate for 8x10
    prints and that isn't anything that's going to change. it's also a
    *lot* more than enough for 4x6 prints which is the size most people
    print, if they print, that is. these days, people just upload to
    facebook or whatever, and for that, they don't need much of anything.
    it's not unusual. good cameras retain their value.
    200 rolls isn't that much. that's 7200 photos. i shot 4000 photos on a
    recent 2 week trip. i shot over 10,000 photos the first year i had my
    dslr. had that been film and assuming $15/roll for both the film and
    processing, that's over $4000.

    plus, you need to subtract the cost of the film camera, so it's
    actually much less than 200 rolls. you were citing a $3500 body, so the
    difference is really only 100 rolls of film, or 3600 photos.

    and that's ignoring that there's no need for an expensive camera in the
    first place unless you *are* a pro, and likely on someone elses budget.
    who said anything about shooting the same thing repeatedly?
    wrong. people are taking pictures where they never did before, creating
    memories they might have skipped because they wanted to save the film
    for something else.
    with film, no they didn't, because it was difficult or impossible to

    with digital it's easy. shoot a bunch of photos and they can be easily
    stitched together later. sony has a cool new feature where you just pan
    the camera and the camera repeatedly takes pictures at the right spots
    as you pan and then auto-stiches the images. presto, a panorama. it
    doesn't get much simpler than that.
    a lot of people *are* buying a flip camera or using their cellphone or
    dslr with hd video. times are a changing.
    Guest, Mar 14, 2011
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Of which you are immune I suppose.
    Then why don;t you answer my points, do you still think pictures are
    captured by LCDs ?
    Whisky-dave, Mar 14, 2011
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    My G10 did OK, but as I said I did't need the4 LCD to take photos.

    Maybe that's the sort of thing Dudley could do with then.
    Although I'm not sure how framing works.

    Like Pros you mean.
    Pity I don't believe you then isn't it.

    wow that's rocket science for you.
    Well of course.

    I don't.
    This is from someone that doesn't think LCDs can work below 0C

    I couldn't care less, but I've had LCDs working below the stated

    it has everything to do with it.
    Picture can be taken even when the LCD isn't working, that is the
    It's a bit like saying you cab;t drive your car because the windscreen
    washer bottle is frozen.
    Whisky-dave, Mar 14, 2011
  20. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    Of course not. He catches the photons one by one with tweezers and
    inserts them in the sensor photosites. Then with two nose hairs in the
    cameras USB plug, he sneezes revolutionary firmware directly in the
    camera processor to extract that
    from the lens aberrations and sensor noise.

    With superzoom come superpowers.
    Ofnuts, Mar 14, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.