DSLR manufacturer's loosing money to cell phone camera's. point and shoots, are they over priced?

SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
edited December 2014 in Nikon DSLR cameras
I love my D700, It was $2,999 US when it came out. I would love a D810 or a D4s, but $3,295 or $5,995 seems a bit steep right? Nikon and Canon have both been seeing sales figures drop of all these expensive camera's to competition.

I know Nikon (and Canon) don't see it like this, but take the "Flagship of the film and the digital lines. You have the Nikon F6 with an MSRP of $2,699 while a D4s is $5,995. Is the D4s really worth the difference? ok, its digital, big deal.

Then you have things like your F100 (prosumer level) it MSRP'ed for around $999..... Why are we paying the prices we are for D300s'es, D610's, D750's, D810's?

I mean, the cost of the materials hasn't gone up $2,000 worth in 10 years and there is no way the R&D costs that much per camera when you are manufacturing as many as they do.
||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
«1

Comments

  • calengorcalengor Posts: 277Member
    $2999 in 2008 dollars, adjusted for inflation is $3327.59, so really, the D810 is selling for less than the D700 did back when it was released. As to the D4s, I'm not sure what it compares to, so I can't do the math on it.

    Also, remember that companies charge what they think the market will bear. The fact that they don't have to severely reduce prices is indicative that the market is indeed bearing the prices they set. Companies also exist to make a profit, so one can't really hold it against them that they're trying to make what money they can.

    Why is digital more expensive than film, that can easily be explained by the fact that film cameras didn't have sensors and all the associated technology, so they could be built more cheaply and sold for less while still making a profit. Once again, you're not taking into account inflation, though. $999 in 1999 dollars comes out to $1420.47, which is more than you're paying for a D7100, and about what a refurb D610 goes for, or a little less than a new D610 body is.
  • Nikonsince1974Nikonsince1974 Posts: 78Member
    I had a tough sell to my wife in 2009 for $3000 for a D700 with the MB-D10. It was my first digital camera. But I asked her how much she thought I paid for my first new F2 (my first one was used)? I paid about $800 for a new F2 black Photomic body in 1984. I told her that if you were to run that to 2009 dollars she would see that the two were not all that different.

    I don't think any serious photographer or manufacturer really feels like cell phones are a serious threat. They can take decent images but let's face it, it is STILL just a phone. No interchangeable lenses, essentially no exposure control. It is a P&S after thought when it comes to a phone.
    Nikon F2S w/ MD-2, FE-2 w/ MD-12, Nikkormat FT3, Nikonos V, F4S, D700

    16mm f/2.8 Fisheye AIS, 18mm f/3.5 AIS, 24mm f/2.8 AIS, 28mm f/2.8 AI, 28mm f/3.5 and 35mm f/2.8 UW-Nikkors, 35mm f/2.8 AIS, 50mm f/1.4 non-AI (AI’d), 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro w/ PK-13, 85mm f/1.4 AIS, 80-200 f/4 AIS, 105mm f/1.8 AIS, 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS, 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AIS, 600mm f/4 ED-IF AIS, TC14B and TC300.

    Hasselblad 500CM with PM90 prism finder and A12/A16 backs, 40mm f/4 CF, 60mm f/3.5 CF, 80mm f/2.8 C, 150mm f/4 C and 250mm f/5.6 C lenses
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,000Member
    Smart Phone cameras have gotten really good and have largely eaten the compact camera business alive. The question is how much downward pressure will they put on the DSLR business and eat it and the answer is probably a bunch. I think that's why Nikon has transitioned to a bunch of FX cameras.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,155Member
    Cells phones are today's instamatics. There will always be a market for that and that market has never posed a significant challenge to more serious gear.

    I would deduct a "sensor adjustment" from a DSLR to arrive at an adjusted price that I would then use to compare it to a film camera, if I am going to attempt an apples to apples comparison. Say $250 for a DX sensor and $800 for an FX sensor. Alternatively, figure out how much money you would have had to put in the bank back in 1990 to earn enough interest to pay for the film and add that cost to the camera. On this basis, cameras/photography has never been cheaper.

    Also consider that my "FX Adjustment" will continue to decline, which will put lower end FX in reach of the masses and reduce the price of higher end FX.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Although the average person might not care or notice. I am partly guilty of taking too many pictures with my phone. But at the end of the day phone camera pictures suck. Period. There is a reason lenses and cameras cost so much. It isn't a gimmick...at least not at this point. Even printed at 4x6 I can clearly tell which pictures are taken with my phone and which with my dSLR. Now is the cost justified? I don't know...depends on the person I think. I want pictures that in the future I can still enjoy and think they are good pictures. I take phone pictures usually as a spur of the moment to capture something, but not usually as something I care to have forever and possibly print out.

    People are just lazy for the most part though. Everyone has a phone and no one wants to carry an extra camera. And for most they are good enough. I at one point used mine too much...later realized they weren't good enough for me and have gone back to at least using my point and shoot if not my dslr.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    Tcole has it right - Most people think "I'm carrying a phone anyway, so if it has a camera in it, great. Why carry another camera".

    The camera in my Samsung is truly horrid but given good light, it improves to terrible.
    Always learning.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited December 2014
    This is the best photograph ever taken of me by my GF with her Samsung
    image
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    Q.E.D.
    Always learning.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,176Member
    Q.E.D.
    I hate maths ..

    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    edited December 2014
    It should be noted that for the vast majority of people, a cell phone image capturing the moment is good enough for their purposes.

    Proper tool for the proper job. If what I want to do is simply capture the moment and share that experience, it would be folly to lug a D800 around.

    Conversely, when I go out to the field to take landscape photographs as part of my artistic hobby, a cell phone would be a poor choice.

    It all depends on "how much camera" is needed for the desired product. Choosing an "over-capable" camera may be as foolish as choosing an "under-capable" camera.

    It is like comparing a tack hammer to a pneumatic nailer. The pneumatic nailer is "better" in many aspects than a tack hammer in terms of productivity, consistancy, and performance. But when you want to hang one picture on the wall, which is the best tool?

    Oh, and a humble request. Have pity for the sanity of an old man. The word is losing, not loosing. There is no such word as loosing. :)
    Post edited by ThomasHorton on
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    edited December 2014
    +1 to capturing the moment. Normally I have a DSLR around me but the iPhone has captured more moments at home.
    I have photos of my dad putting plates on his head to entertain the kids. Not to mention the cute things my kids do. Also the diaper video that I did a while ago, I can't recreate that because my son will not laugh like he did anymore. Had I taken 5 Minutes to set up Camera and light I would have no footage.
    Post edited by Vipmediastar_JZ on
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,289Member
    Smart Phone cameras have gotten really good and have largely eaten the compact camera business alive. The question is how much downward pressure will they put on the DSLR business and eat it and the answer is probably a bunch. I think that's why Nikon has transitioned to a bunch of FX cameras.
    Agree that smart phone cameras have gotten much better. I'm not convinced that these same cameras have done much to dslr sales. What they have done is create whole new avenues for quick, relatively low quality (i.e. "good enough"), e.g Instagram, where previously a camera like an Instamatic (film) or a digital P&S would have been used. So yeah, those markets are pretty well torn up. Probably does nibble a bit at the entry level market, but I still think when noobs want to start taking "good" pictures, and they start to encounter the limitations of their smart phone images, then they start looking towards entry level dslr's (or better).

    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    That is a good point. Will cell phone cameras actually encourage a small subset of people to "upgrade" to a "real" camera?

    As cell phone cameras become more capable, it may lead more people to consider the artistic aspects of photography instead of just the documentary aspect. Then their interest may scope out of a cell phone.

    Who knows. I think it is safe to say that cell phones will have an effect on DSLRs. Whether it is a negative, positive, or a combination of both is tough to say. But we should not presume that cell phones will only have a negative effect.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,098Member
    edited December 2014
    I think the reality is that the people who use cell phone cameras are primarily the same people who only ever used cheap (sub $300) point and shoots. In other words, quality was always going to be secondary to easy of use to those individuals. Cell phones fit those needs extremely well, so it's not at all shocking.

    Does that hurt the camera makers profit margins? For some yes. Is it hurting DSLR sales? I doubt it. Are camera sales declining across the board? Yes. It's called market saturation, it's the same reason that tablet sales are falling, computer sales are falling, and camera sales. People have a line that they come to where what they have is good enough, and for now a lot of people have hit that line. Unless there is a big technical leap I doubt we'll see the kind of camera sales that took place over the last 5-7 years.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    High-end DSLRs (D750, D810, D4s) and cell phones are playing in completely different markets. Pros aren't going to start shooting weddings with cell phones, and people aren't going to start shooting selfies with D810s. Both serve different purposes and have different target markets. Of course, that doesn't mean one could not own both though.

    Mirrorless is a much bigger threat to DSLRs than cell phones.
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,098Member
    Mirrorless sales have been flat for the last three years, but yes they are more of a threat at this point. Eventually most DSLR's, at least below the D7100 level, will go mirrorless. It's not a matter of if but when, because it is far less expensive to manufacture mirrorless cameras than a DSLR, which means greater margins, something the camera makers will need if they want to survive.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    As I have said before, each device serves their own purpose.

    My iPhone 6 Plus, moreover, all the one's before it, have been a great tool, where my D-SLR would have been foolish to use. Example, being at a store trying to get an item or finding an item that a family member has asked for. It saves me so much time and energy to take the picture with my cellphone, send it via text message or email and then a few minute later I have my answer. Something that is just unrealistic to do with a D-SLR.

    I think it is safe to say that many of us that own and use a D-SLR know when is the right time and when it is not. Moreover, as cellphone photographer getting into photography, will find out soon the limits of their cellphone and will start looking into better equipment, hence a D-SLR or P&S.

    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,000Member

    Agree that smart phone cameras have gotten much better. I'm not convinced that these same cameras have done much to dslr sales. What they have done is create whole new avenues for quick, relatively low quality (i.e. "good enough"), e.g Instagram, where previously a camera like an Instamatic (film) or a digital P&S would have been used. So yeah, those markets are pretty well torn up. Probably does nibble a bit at the entry level market, but I still think when noobs want to start taking "good" pictures, and they start to encounter the limitations of their smart phone images, then they start looking towards entry level dslr's (or better).
    I disagree a little... the scenario that plays out in my mind is this: can I snap a photo with the iPhone 6Plus, edit it and immediately distribute it and it will have more of an impact versus let me take the photo with a DSLR then (sometimes sadly) days later edit it and finally distribute. I would argue that DSLRs before the advent of good smartphone cameras would be used more often for casual shooting. A few years ago, you could argue that if you are going to carry a camera, why not a DSLR? Fast forward and DSLRs are now coming full circle back to specialty and professional shooting, and thus overall DSLR sales are hurting. The iPhone is not going to hurt sales of a D4S or D810, but ask yourself about a D3200? Yes, everyone here knows the picture difference on a DSLR, but then most everyone here would also fancy more controls and better image quality and are thus probably not shooting the entry level DSLRs...
  • Q.E.D.
    I hate maths...
    That's not maths, that's science. ;-)

  • jshirleyjshirley Posts: 16Member
    Loose vs lose.
    Nikon D600, D7000, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G, 105 2,8G, 24-70 2.8G, 55-200dx, 35 1.8DX, 12-24DX, 55 2.8 Micro.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Oh yeah not to mention the numerous benefits of the camera functions over a cell phone. Ever try to take a picture of something moving with a cell phone? Or in low light? Or have you ever seen any bokeh?

    It takes me back to my first Kodak point and shoot that had no optical zoom and was 3.2 MP. It took forever to turn on, you couldn't zoom, picture quality was terrible. I finally got tired of the limitations and got a Fuji s5200. Liked it pretty well and it offered more functions but I still got frustrated with it. I wanted to be able to manually focus and have the startup quickness of a dslr.

    Still people now a days want convience. If people really care about picture quality they will use a real camera still. I still see lots of cameras at the zoo and on vacation.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,117Member
    edited December 2014
    In the long run cell phone cameras probably will take a chunk out of the sales of higher end cameras. It explains why camera makers are making more high end compacts, it's because no one needs to buy low end cameras anymore, their phones are good enough as it is. Like others have said though, for many people, the camera on your phone is probably good enough. For enthusiasts that go to this forum, probably not. That being said, there are times when a cell phone camera isn't going to cut it.

    My cell phone, a Moto G, has a pretty bad camera, but I always have it with me. I don't always have my D7000. For the most part, it does a pretty decent job.

    Different tools for different jobs.

    Digital Monet?

    This is a crop off the edge of a file I got from my camera phone. There's so much noise, even in good light. But it does look sort of pleasing to my eye...
    Post edited by NSXTypeR on
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    Will Fiat Cinquecentos eat into Supercar sales :-?
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,000Member
    Will Fiat Cinquecentos eat into Supercar sales :-?
    Even Leonardo decaprio and Jamie foxx drive a Prius.
    D4s and d810 sales will be untouched. It's the lower end ones that are at risk.
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 4,775Member
    +1 that the lower end point & shoot cameras are at risk. My perspective, major risk for those under $300.

    After 27 months I just upgraded my phone and it's got a 20MP camera and updated flash. I have only take a couple of pictures and sent one to my son who uses an Apple iPhone. His comment back to me was wow, that is a sharp picture. Better than his 1 year old iPhone. The wife also got a new phone, a 16MP camera and it's pictures look decent.

    Still don't see the end to the DSLR so long they continue to keep the prices coming down and the IQ is high. Referring to the entry level DSLR's, not the high end DSLR's (enthusiastic and pro models).
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
Sign In or Register to comment.