What is with all these beginners with $1000+ cameras?

[CanAm]

Uhh, ok. Don't mean to take that personally, but would you mind fleshing your comment out a bit? Frankly, I'm pretty sure I remember high school economics. Remember college and law school economics too, for that matter. Also remember all the economic theory I've studied since law school. (Or at least I sure hope I do, because some very nice people are paying me to give them advice based on it!) :er:

In any event, these concepts aren't that advanced, but, hey, maybe I did miss something really basic -- it happens. If you really disagree with what I said then please explain and I'd be glad to discuss.

It could go one of two ways. Either people buying more cameras will make prices drop, or they could make them rise.

You do realize that you also pay for R&D in a camera when you buy it right? Let's say more people buy 40Ds, Canon starts working on a new camera, the prices in the 40D will most likely stay the same or even rise due to new R&D costs.

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?

 

[Alex_B]

Because of jealousy and envy.

Exactly! This was a rhetorical question of mine anyway

The only thing I think sad is, if someone not that rich is talked into buying something expensive he does not need. But many people buy things since they can afford them .. and then cannot use them to their potential. but that is fine with me. my images with a cheaper cam are still better then

 

[rmh159]

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?

Man, this is WAY off base. You can't compare the price of oil to the price of a camera any better than you can compare the price of an egg to the price of a Xbox 360.

One is technology that ages quickly and doens't maintain value and one is a necessity to daily life.

TheOtherBob: 1 CanAm: 0

 

[CanAm]

Man, this is WAY off base. You can't compare the price of oil to the price of a camera any better than you can compare the price of an egg to the price of a Xbox 360.

One is technology that ages quickly and doens't maintain value and one is a necessity to daily life.

TheOtherBob: 1 CanAm: 0

Actually, no.

I never said the supply and demand structure was the same, I said that if people will pay more, companies will charge more.

Plus, it wasn't a debate. He wanted an explanation, I gave it. He has much more knowledge in the application of economics, and for all I know I could be wrong.

@rmh159 - I don't get why in every discussion, no matter what the topic, some third party needs to take a side and create this dichotomy of opinions. We all have our own opinion, and we all like taking pictures. Instead of focusing on our differences, why not elaborate on our common grounds as people?

 

[Mav]

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?

Oh brother. :lmao:

 

[CanAm]

Oh brother. :lmao:

Tell me then, why you pay more for a branded item, versus a generic one?

People identify with names and will pay more for them.

 

[Mav]

Tell me then, why you pay more for a branded item, versus a generic one?

People identify with names and will pay more for them.

Nope, I don't play this game, sorry. This has nothing to do with what you were saying before and is a totally different argument. Here's what you were saying before.

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?

My reply: Gee, could it have something to do with record demand for oil thanks to the exploding economies of India and China? How bout the concept of an inelastic supply curve where if demand rises, supply stays relatively fixed? How bout the fact that no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in ages, thus an increased demand for foreign refined fuel which is more expensive? How bout the oil companies do not dictate and "raise" their prices and that prices are set based on oil traders at the mercantile exchange in New York? Seasonal demand? Security concerns?

If you're going to call someone out on their economics knowledge, at least demonstrate some yourself.

BTW, "most" people who visit this particular beginners sub-forum, as in about 80%, shopping for their first DSLR are sticking with the Nikon D40 or cheaper Canon Digital Rebel bodies with an initial budget of $500-600, sometimes even less. Very few are jumping right in with $1000+ bodies. So right off the bat you're instantly mischaracterizing what most beginners are buying. The D40 is Nikon's most popular model by far, and it single-handedly pushed them past Canon for DSLR marketshare in Japan. Did you know that? Again, very few are jumping right in for a grand or more. And if they do and they get crap results, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them too. If you were on this forum for more than a day before posting this thread, you might have known at least some of this.


Troll feeding over.

 

[CanAm]

Nope, I don't play this game, sorry. This has nothing to do with what you were saying before and is a totally different argument. Here's what you were saying before.

My reply: Gee, could it have something to do with record demand for oil thanks to the exploding economies of India and China? How bout the concept of an inelastic supply curve where if demand rises, supply stays relatively fixed? How bout the fact that no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in ages, thus an increased demand for foreign refined fuel which is more expensive? How bout the oil companies do not dictate and "raise" their prices and that prices are set based on oil traders at the mercantile exchange in New York? Seasonal demand? Security concerns?

If you're going to call someone out on their economics knowledge, at least demonstrate some yourself.

BTW, "most" people who visit this particular beginners sub-forum, as in about 80%, shopping for their first DSLR are sticking with the Nikon D40 or cheaper Canon Digital Rebel bodies with an initial budget of $500-600, sometimes even less. Very few are jumping right in with $1000+ bodies. So right off the bat you're instantly mischaracterizing what most beginners are buying. The D40 is Nikon's most popular model by far, and it single-handedly pushed them past Canon for DSLR marketshare in Japan. Did you know that? Again, very few are jumping right in for a grand or more. And if they do and they get crap results, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them too. If you were on this forum for more than a day before posting this thread, you might have known at least some of this.


Troll feeding over.

I wasn't trolling at all. My entire original "someone doesn't remember highschool economics" thing was a joke... thus the "" smiley. I even admitted that the other poster had far more experience in the application of economics than I did. I'm just a college kid, and a linguistics major at that. You think I should be better educated in the way of the domestic and international markets, then write your congressman.

Yes, most people do have SLRs that cost less than $1000 dollars, but I was asking about the minority that spend more than $1000 on their first SLR. I wasn't asking about that majority that bought D40s, Rebel Xt's, etc.

PS- You have no idea how long I've been reading this forum. For all you know I could have been here for months before I decided to register. Reg date is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Socrates]

I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.

I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?

Not criticizing, just curious... (and a bit jealous )

EDIT- By "1000 dollar camera", I mean just the body, not including lenses and other accessories.

In discussions like this, everybody loves to quote Ansel Adams. I ask you, did he EVER state that he does not understand how cameras work? I maintain that, in order to produce good photographs consistently, you need not only an eye for beauty but also an appreciation for the mechanics of a camera. Of course, having that appreciation means that you will also utilize the best equipment that you can afford.

In my case, I have a lousy eye for beauty but I am somewhat of a geek with regard to photographic technical knowledge. My wife is the exact opposite. We'll go out together and she'll describe a potential photo, ending with the question: "Can you do that?" I'll use my knowledge of my gear and create the photo that she described.

By the way, I have an N80, a D80, a 50mm f/1.4 with a Hoya Pro-1 clear protector, a 28-105 zoom macro with a Hoya Pro-1 clear protector, an 85 f/1.8 with a Hoya Pro-1 circular polarizer, an 18-200 VR with a Hoya Pro-1 circular polarizer, an SB-600 with a Stroboframe bracket and some other stuff that I can't remember right now.

 

[CanAm]

In discussions like this, everybody loves to quote Ansel Adams. I ask you, did he EVER state that he does not understand how cameras work? I maintain that, in order to produce good photographs consistently, you need not only an eye for beauty but also an appreciation for the mechanics of a camera. Of course, having that appreciation means that you will also utilize the best equipment that you can afford.

In my case, I have a lousy eye for beauty but I am somewhat of a geek with regard to photographic technical knowledge. My wife is the exact opposite. We'll go out together and she'll describe a potential photo, ending with the question: "Can you do that?" I'll use my knowledge of my gear and create the photo that she described.

Well said.

Also, the idea of tag-team photography is kinda cute.

 

[MACollum]

Photography has been a hobby of mine for a few years now. However, shooting with a P&S is WAAAYYY different than SLR photography. In that sense I'm still a noob, even though I've been taking pictures for many years.

I bought my XTi when they first came on the market so I paid $900 for the body and kit lens. Even though I still suck (and I've spent so much on equipment) I don't regret it. I love photography. I'm so excited about spring (it's right around the corner!!) I could jump out of my skin

 

[kundalini]

Another potentially good thread taking a nose dive due to thin skins and egos.

And yet another reason I don't list my gear in my signature, as well. It really doesn't matter.

 

[CanAm]

Another potentially good thread taking a nose dive due to thin skins and egos.

And yet another reason I don't list my gear in my signature, as well. It really doesn't matter.

I agree, gear does not matter. My initial inquiry was out of sheer curiosity. I want to know why people bought what they did and their rationalization for it.

 

[Christie Photo]

It's really rather simple. Folks will buy SLRs now because the feel they will be able to use them. 40 years ago, SLRs were not for the casual user. It required a basic understanding of exposure and metering to achieve consistent results. AND... zoom lenses were not common, or affordable for that matter. So a camera SYSTEM was necessary.

These days, the auto modes and zoom lenses make it reasonable to EXPECT consistent, good results without much effort.

-Pete

 

[TheOtherBob]

It could go one of two ways. Either people buying more cameras will make prices drop, or they could make them rise.

You do realize that you also pay for R&D in a camera when you buy it right? Let's say more people buy 40Ds, Canon starts working on a new camera, the prices in the 40D will most likely stay the same or even rise due to new R&D costs.

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?

No, sorry, but you've missed something critical to what I said earlier -- supply. If the product in question had a significant limitation in supply, then, yes, demand could outstrip supply leading to a theoretical price increase (theoretical because of market forces that don't need to be discussed here (and that make my Chicago School friends sick to their stomachs)).

Or, to answer your question, why is gas so expensive?

OPEC.

(Oh, and the fact that refineries can only process certain amounts at a time, and that new refineries are difficult and expensive to build, meaning that supply is relatively inelastic and has failed to outpace demand over the last few years, and that there are complicated relationships between the various refiners, distributors, etc... Truth be told, the question of gas pricing is extremely complicated, and I'm over-simplifying the heck out of it -- to say "OPEC" is to tell about a tenth of the story, if that. But "inelastic supply" is a good place to start. Anyways...)

But that's why I noted that there was no apparent limitation on supply in the camera market. Cameras are not made up of any raw material that's hard to obtain, and to my knowledge camera manufacturing has usually (though probably not always) been able to keep up with demand despite recent demand increases. I'd guess (and I've been assuming) that the supply in this market is sufficiently elastic to almost always meet demand in a reasonably timely fashion, and that competition is sufficiently strong to provide a manufacturer with incentives to supply as much as it can sell (market demand curves and all, you know?). If that's wrong, of course, then I'm wrong -- but that's the assumption I'm making.

If supply is elastic, then anything other than a sharp spike in demand will likely be met by a resulting increase in supply. At the same time the increased supply has a backside benefit - scale. As supply increases, economies of scale are likely to increase, resulting in cost savings. In a highly competitive market, those cost savings are likely to result in price cuts or increased innovations. Simple as that -- so I guess I still don't understand your disagreement. :er:

To the R&D costs, again, sorry, but you're way off. Economies of scale don't reset -- in part because Canon doesn't (as your example would require) observe consumer demand levels and then decide whether they want to do R&D for future products. They're always doing R&D, so if there are ways to make that R&D cheaper or better...great. Economies of scale make R&D cheaper and/or better.

For your view to work, we'd have to assume that Canon built the 40D, saw customer demand for it, and decided to do more R&D than they otherwise would have -- AND that such additional R&D was so costly that it more than offset the economies of scale. But...why would Canon have done that? (Putting aside the fact that Nikon would then eat their lunch.) Or, more directly, why would increased consumer demand influence Canon's decision to increase R&D to a level exceeding its profit-maximizing point? Simply put, they wouldn't - there's just no reason for them to do that (unless they...you know...just don't like money.)

Anyways, back to work.