World wide camera sales less than 10% from 2010 (Page 8): I just checked the prices on the items in today's SONY posting. The new A1 camera is about $6,300 or $6,500. I don't think it...

hjkarten Loc: San Diego, California

I just checked the prices on the items in today's SONY posting.
The new A1 camera is about $6,300 or $6,500. I don't think it includes a lens for that price.
The new cell phone, which is being pitched as for "creative pros" is $2,500.
I have no plans to get rid of my 10 month old A7R4 (ca. $3,000) or my 3 year old cell phone (ca. $375).
I love photography, but there are limits to what I will spend. What will the A1 do that my A7R4 can't now do?
30 frames/second? better video? New BSI chip?
I just was looking at the new Canon R5. Great camera, but another $5 - 6 thousand for body + lens. THese units are pushing the limits of justifiable prices for serious amateurs and even professional photographers.

anotherview Loc: California

I own and use a Canon 6D with the Sigma 100-400 lens mounted on it, for most satisfying results. I also own and use a Canon 6DII with the Sigma 24-105 lens for it. It too produces satisfying results.

Adobe Camera Raw auto adjusts for the irregularities of these two lenses.

I'm not tempted at all by new camera releases. I have what I need to do all my photography.

hjkarten wrote:

I just checked the prices on the items in today's ... (show quote)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

Assuming every photographer in 2010 was interested in buying the newest cutting edge full-frame camera, without regard to price, there's still 90% less of them putting their money where their GAS is in 2021. You and your friends have a lot of equipment to start buying if you're going to pull the companies behind Sony and Canon out of their nosedives.

But, just remember: If Sony mirrorless cameras were better than DSLRs, they would be more expensive.

And remember, for every company that nosedives, Sony's sensor manufacturing nosedives too. One less company to sell sensors to. Sony has forced the Sony cameras to pay for themselves by taking the camera division and spinning them off into a camera company. Sony also recognizes that the market for stand alone cameras is not coming back to be what it was.

gouldopfl

I think that the upper end Sony's and the Canon R5 are priced about the same. The rumored Canon R1 which is expected to be the mirrorless replacement for the DX 1 Mark III will be priced competively with the new Sony Alpha 1 I believe. That being said, how large is the market for those cameras.

Whether or not a DSLR is better or worse than a mirrorless is kind of a moot point at this time. The market has changed to mirrorless. I find my mirrorless to be "easier" to use, faster frame rates, etc. This is mainly due to newer technologies and better firmware.

markjay

anotherview wrote:

A full frame camera is an electromechanical device. Laptops have one moving part -- the hard drive -- and even that it is going away.
So the makeup of the device plays a part in cost of manufacture.

A full frame MIRRORLESS camera - the clear trend for all SLR cameras, have NO moving parts. They are just a case and electronics. Nothing more. And far less costly than all the electronics in a laptop.

Bbarn Loc: Ohio

Market size/volume is major factor in both parts cost and assembly cost. Price is affected by both cost and demand.

That complicates comparisons across product categories.

markjay

Bbarn wrote:

Market size/volume is major factor in both parts cost and assembly cost. Price is affected by both cost and demand.

That complicates comparisons across product categories.

Yes - your statement is true - IF you are comparing one product with production of 1,000 units to a product with production of 10 million units.

But if you are comparing production of one product with 5 million units to a product with 10 million units - parts and assembly cost have basically no difference.

The cost of 10 million sensor chips is not less than the cost of 5 million.
And laptops still have far more electronics and higher parts cost than a camera.

A mirrorless camera is effectively no different anymore than a computer, with the electronics just placed in a different shaped case.

Bbarn Loc: Ohio

But it is a factor of 20X, not 2X (200 M Laptops versus less than 10 M cameras). 20X will affect cost of parts and assembly. My firsthand knowledge of the electronics cost of laptops and that of cameras is very limited. I do know repair parts for both are rather high compared to parts for desktop PCs. And desktop PCs are sold in numbers closer to laptop volumes than camera volumes.

markjay

Bbarn wrote:

But it is a factor of 20X, not 2X (200 M Laptops versus less than 10 M cameras). 20X will affect cost of parts and assembly. My firsthand knowledge of the electronics cost of laptops and that of cameras is very limited. I do know repair parts for both are rather high compared to parts for desktop PCs. And desktop PCs are sold in numbers closer to laptop volumes than camera volumes.

The point is not 10 million units vs 200 million units. There is still not much difference in pricing parts. By the time you have squeezed down the cost for 10 million units of anything, there is no room left to get the cost lower for 200 million units.

The point is that for less expensive SLRs - as low as 4-500 dollars, compared to similar priced laptops , there is only a fraction of the electronics that are in a laptop. The price of a 13 inch laptop screen would likely cover the price of all the electronics in an SLR. A laptop main processing chip is far more expensive than the processing chip in a camera. There is no comparison in terms of the processing power required to run a laptop vs the processing needed to do only one task in a camera.

Bbarn Loc: Ohio

Do you have actual knowledge of the parts costs mentioned above, or are you perhaps presuming based on product characteristics like processing power or touchscreen size?

markjay

I dont have exact costs, but I do work in electronics manufacturing sector, so I have a good relative sense of costs. It is possible that there is also something in a camera body besides the processor chip, sensor, memory chip, and power control. But I dont know specifically. Those 4 components are not expensive.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

markjay wrote:

The point is not 10 million units vs 200 million u... (show quote)

The differences between ~100 million sensors then versus the ~9million sensors now is substantial for Sony. That is basically a 90% loss in revenue for Sony. How many businesses, big or small, do not bow down to such a loss and lessen materials and personnel? None that I know of. And here we are only talking sensors where there is less competition than cameras. Both computer chips and sensor chips are made with similar processes and have similar "cheap" cost. I know because I have held computer chips that cost $0.5 M and have an 18 month lead time. Because of the permanent down turn in camera sales, Sony separated its camera division to a company and is now forcing them to take care of their "own house". They will succeed but probably even at a smaller size than today and in more of a "niche" market that stand alone cameras have become.

anotherview Loc: California

Add distribution, transportation, handling, advertising, and profit to the cost profile.

Bbarn wrote:

Market size/volume is major factor in both parts cost and assembly cost. Price is affected by both cost and demand.

That complicates comparisons across product categories.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

markjay wrote:

I dont have exact costs, but I do work in electronics manufacturing sector, so I have a good relative sense of costs. It is possible that there is also something in a camera body besides the processor chip, sensor, memory chip, and power control. But I dont know specifically. Those 4 components are not expensive.

You are forgetting labor. We have machines that place all the electronic components on the boards, solders them, and test them. Not much labor. But to put a camera together, there are not many "cheap" machines that can put them together as cheaply as a person. The electronics are not the most expensive part of the camera. R&D and labor are why cameras costs so much more than computers. That is why many camera companies are putting plants in other countries so the labor costs are less.

anotherview Loc: California

Econ 101 under the global market together account for pricing as we customers see it. I've noticed in the past when I shopped for Canon camera gear, all stores offered the same price for, say, a new camera. I understand that Canon would require this condition for sellers. I cannot recall why this control. Maybe others here can explain this arrangement.

wdross wrote:

You are forgetting labor. We have machines that pl... (show quote)