BebuLamar

Well any camera can be the first camera one has so why do we distinguish between starter and non starter? My first camera was the Nikon F2AS in 77 and I never regret it.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I can only think some are not sure they will continue with the hobby & want to keep the price & complexity to a minimum...

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm with you on this one, to a degree. I'd prefer to start with a camera that has capabilities beyond what pros need. That way one is not limited by the equipment. That said, the price is always a consideration. A lot of people approach any possible interest with that in mind.

I just wonder at times, if Nikon made only one model, let's say the D850. How much less would its price be if that was the only model they produced. They would be saving a great deal on producing all of the other models and lenses for those models. It's just a thought, nothing more. Overall, the company would be saving quite a bit of money which they could use for producing only one camera and upgrading it periodically. The overall effect would be more D850s sold at lower prices. Their profits would be about the same.
--Bob

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

What could that possibly be?

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Before I became addicted, I wanted to step up from point and shoot. I was blessed with $800 from the Oregon lottery and that was my spending limit. That bought a D3100 2-lens kit, an SB-400 flash and a few filters. Money well spent.

srodday Loc: Mass

I tend to oscillate. Sometimes the simpler cameras help you focus on technique. Of course, I don't think that when I have an attack of GAS but then I look online like FLICKR and see beautiful photos taken with "simplier" cameras as well. The only diff when you really need fancier cameras (IMO) - if you shoot in low light or fast action.

Suzanne

-Suzanne

If you aren't sure, rent! A chance to try something before buying.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I would think it's related to price, and starters or P&S cameras can be cheaper. Or they may want to try some photos and see if they will stay with it, and don't want to invest a lot to start......for me, i'm a poor man and have never paid over $1000 - $1200, which gets a real good low end or entry camera. I've only bought 3 in my life.....and i'm 71 now. Been shooting for a little over 50 years, since I was in the service, and lord knows service men don't get much pay.....

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Who wouldn't want a D850 based on the features it offers. It cost $3200, and if you bought a FX 28-300mm lens, about $1000. That's $4200. Many would gasp at those prices. And you certainly would want at least another FX lens. Nikon will not make just one model DSLR. A less expensive route would be to purchase a D610 as a starter in full frame. I like my DX gear and lenses, just as full frame camera owners like their gear. Something is better than nothing at all.

Neilhunt

Actually, pricing theory has two principles that pull in opposite directions in order to maximize yield or profit.

You have identified the principle of "scale" - by concentrating on one product, the fixed costs of design are divided by more units of the same product.

The other principle is known as "price discrimination", which refers to the idea of having a higher price for those who can afford and don't care, and a lower price for people who can't afford or do care about price. Usually, price discrimination works with differentiated products - e.g. good, better, best, with different features, but not always. "Scratch and dent sales" are one way to lower the price of a product to bring in additional buyers, while keeping the price high for those who would have bought it at the high price anyway. There are even anecdotes of big box retailers sending employees to the warehouse to scratch and dent appliances to have more inventory of cheap units for their sale!

With technical products, it's often possible to take advantage of both principles of scale and price discrimination by having something that's essentially the same product, but caking it something different. In many cases, the main difference between two different price points of camera might be firmware that enables extra features on the higher priced one, but in fact the two are nearly the same from a point of view of design and materials.

Less relevant here, in a variation of price discrimination, many electronics vendors produce a different SKU for Best Buy vs. Amazon, so that they can offer a lower wholesale price to the store retailer vs the etailer, although the retail price might end up the same, and the product might literally be identical except for a model number. This prevents price searches revealing a lower price from one retailer to the other since they sell apparently different products.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

In the film days, a good starter camera was either a Box Brownie type or any camera that had all the manual adjustments available to the user. The beginner didn't have a light meter; that was added later. Examples of those cameras were the Argus C3 and the Kodak Pony 135, both under $50 in 1950-60 dollars. The intimidation factor for the new photographer was about the same regardless of the camera. A Lica was no more complex to the new user than the Argus.

Times have changed! A starter camera could be a fully automatic without overrides, something in the middle or high end. The big difference is that the more advanced the camera, the more intimidating it can be to the newbee. My advice to the newcomer who wants a DSLR is to first decide on a brand and then buy a kit camera. If they master the kit camera, they can keep the lenses and trade up to something more advanced. If they lose interest, they will have a camera they will be comfortable with.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

"If they master the kit camera, they can keep the lenses and trade up to something more advanced. If they lose interest, they will have a camera they will be comfortable with."

Wow--I would have said the other: If they master the kit camera, they can trade up to finer lenses (or add some).

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

It works either way. Better camera, lens or accessories is their decision. By the time they are ready to move up they will hopefully have enough hands on experience and understanding of DSLR photography to make informed decisions on the upgrades that are appropriate to their personal needs. If not, they can always ask UHH members.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Since you're not ChrisT, I'll answer this. I bought my "starter" camera back in 2013 for $400 so I could get into the micro four thirds system. When the house was paid off a few years later and more features were available, I could afford the $900 camera. It's like buying the two bedroom house or the Toyota Corolla and winding up years later with the four bedroom house + 2 car garage or the Cadillac Escalade.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Obviously a 'Starter' Camera is one aimed at those that don't know anything about photography. So it depends upon 'who' you ask and what budget you can afford as to which one it is.
Obviously having been sold a 'starter' camera very soon you are encouraged to upgrade in order to get 'better' pictures.

ask anyone who 'helps' a beginner.....chances are they suggest a more expensive camera.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For me it was cost - I purchased my first camera when I was 16 or 17 years old and still an "apprentice". A Kodak Retinette 1A type 035 .
Buying a SLR didn't come for about 1-2 years latter and it was a huge step up both in $$$ and usability.

My wife started with an Kodak Instamatic and that was the first and last still camera she ever purchased.