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

[Mav]

Technology ages quickly so it's not a good comparison. That's why tech companies replace models so quickly. For example Nikon comes out with a D40 and they price it at $600 (not sure what the actual price is so I'm guessing a bit). Even if it sells well they're not going to increase the price. They make their profit because the cost to produce it drops due to the aged tech inside it.

On something like this, the cost to produce remains relatively fixed. Its 6MP sensor was already "old tech" when the camera was introduced and a lot of the other hardware components are all "platform" parts that are shared which have relatively steady and low prices as well. Therefore maximum profit is made on the first units sold, at an MSRP of $599. Companies love early adopters and love it when there's lots of them, because that's where they make all of their money. After awhile the hype and sales fade a bit, so they drop the price a little to encourage more buyers. Then they go into kits at Costco. Then they offer the special two lens kits with a camera bag and memory cards and bundle it. Then they drop the basic kit price even more. Then they offer refurb units for $399 with a lens and a warranty! By this point they're really not making too much money on the actual kit. What they're doing is getting their foot in the door for future sales, because they know that eventually all of their new D40 owners are going to want more advanced lenses, like the 70-300VR for $500. An SB-600 flash for $180. A 17-55 f/2.8 pro zoom lens for $1200. A 12-24 wide angle for a bit less than that, etc. They flood the market with as many D40's as they can, and then intentionally limit the supply of lenses, including the really nice ones, to keep the ASP (average selling price) high on those to keep margins high.

 

[Mav]

Anyways I started with a $1000 camera. A D80 at or near its intro at $999.99 (close enough). At the time the D70/s was a bit cheaper and looked like a pretty good camera, but it was already a 2 year old camera with 2 year old technology. With each generation of cameras, so many things improve like white balance handling and dynamic range and noise performance and firmware/usability improvements that are either unspecified, or difficult to specify or quantify to begin with. So I didn't really want a 2 year old camera. The D50 was even cheaper, but a little too basic and I knew I wanted more. I wasn't a complete newbie. I was into photography for years with digital point and shoots and took my various Kodak and Sony cameras all over the world literally. I never had a film SLR, and DSLRs were still enormously expensive and impractical when i was starting out so I decided to wait 3-5 years to let them mature a bit. Glad I did, because they're STILL not cheap! One day in 2006 my wife announced that we were gonna have a new addition to the family, so that was one thing. Then I decided that I was gonna take her on a "babymoon" to Paris because I had always promised her Paris, and it was now or never. About that time the D80 was announced at $1099 with a lens and it looked great, so I knew my ship had come in and made the jump.

I think I've made pretty good use of it. Today it has almost 19,000 actuations on it, I've shot some informal and formal company events, a wedding, got a ton of great baby photos, Paris pictures, other trip and vacation photos, and have taken the thing just about everywhere. I also picked up a D40 and a nice collection of lenses too. I'm glad I didn't go for a D50. I shoot just seriously enough that the extra money spent on the D80 was worth it to me. I'm also glad I didn't get a D200, which was a lot more at the time. The D200 is a much more serious camera, but 99.9% of the time I'm not shooting seriously enough to warrant a D200 and my D80 does just fine. No sense in out-buying your own needs. I used the money I "saved" by not buying a D200 to start up a nice collection of lenses instead.

The advice I was given when I started was the following: Buy the cheapest body that you can get by with, even a used one, and invest most of your money in NICE lenses instead. DSLR bodies are still advancing greatly every year, and have ridiculous amounts of depreciation. A nearly $2000 camera bought today will hardly be worth $1000 in the blink of an eye. My D80 bought new for $1000 is only worth maybe $600 today. When the D90 comes out this fall, it'll drop to about $500. A D50 bought new for $700 with a lens ($600 body only) when my D80 was new is still worth $400 body-only today or thereabouts. That's $200 of depreciation for a D50 bought in Fall 2006 vs $400 of depreciation for a D80 bought in the Fall of 2006 vs $800 of depreciation for a D200 bought in the Fall of 2006. This is why it's such a bad idea to buy more body than you need. If you're not using it to its full potential, then all of the money you end up wasting could have gone into nicer lenses instead, which make a far greater difference, and also hold their value a lot better. A $1200 professional zoom bought new in the Fall of 2006 that makes FANTASTIC photos even on a cheap D40/D50 type camera can still be sold used for $1000-1100 today. In fact you could have bought it used back then as well, and sell it for about the same price you got it for used today, so it effectively costs you nothing.

 

[rmh159]

On something like this, the cost to produce remains relatively fixed. Its 6MP sensor was already "old tech" when the camera was introduced and a lot of the other hardware components are all "platform" parts that are shared which have relatively steady and low prices as well. Therefore maximum profit is made on the first units sold, at an MSRP of $599. Companies love early adopters and love it when there's lots of them, because that's where they make all of their money. After awhile the hype and sales fade a bit, so they drop the price a little to encourage more buyers. Then they go into kits at Costco. Then they offer the special two lens kits with a camera bag and memory cards and bundle it. Then they drop the basic kit price even more. Then they offer refurb units for $399 with a lens and a warranty! By this point they're really not making too much money on the actual kit. What they're doing is getting their foot in the door for future sales, because they know that eventually all of their new D40 owners are going to want more advanced lenses, like the 70-300VR for $500. An SB-600 flash for $180. A 17-55 f/2.8 pro zoom lens for $1200. A 12-24 wide angle for a bit less than that, etc. They flood the market with as many D40's as they can, and then intentionally limit the supply of lenses, including the really nice ones, to keep the ASP (average selling price) high on those to keep margins high.

Hahaha good example. My point is simply this... it's not as easy as saying if a product sells well the manufacturers will jack up the price like oil companies do because it just doesn't make sense. The two don't compare.

Ok... I'm going into "Read-Only" with this thread.

 

[Rachelsne]

I paid $600 ish for my S3 which is an advanced point and shoot, I soooooo wish I had spent the extra and got my self a nice DSLR because now I feel the need to upgrade and I cant afford too at the moment.

If you enjoy your camera and use it alot then who cares if your a 16 year old or a 80 year old, beginner or not, if you enjoy it then all is good.

(of course i am jealous of all those with DSLR)

 

[Socrates]

I paid $600 ish for my S3 which is an advanced point and shoot, I soooooo wish I had spent the extra and got my self a nice DSLR because now I feel the need to upgrade and I cant afford too at the moment.

If you enjoy your camera and use it alot then who cares if your a 16 year old or a 80 year old, beginner or not, if you enjoy it then all is good.

(of course i am jealous of all those with DSLR)

Don't forget: Whoever dies with the most toys wins!

 

[mstephens]

to all of you who are bashing "newbies" dont forget you were there once and if you could have afforded a 40D instead of a XTi i am sure you would have.

I really hope nobody that is just starting is reading some of these replies because they will never want to get into this industry with the way that some of you all are talking down about them so much. if i were a "newbie" and read this i would be backing out of this hobby because i wouldnt want to deal with some of you all (and no im not talking about everyone who has replied to this topic)

 

[CanadianMe]

to all of you who are bashing "newbies" dont forget you were there once and if you could have afforded a 40D instead of a XTi i am sure you would have.

I really hope nobody that is just starting is reading some of these replies because they will never want to get into this industry with the way that some of you all are talking down about them so much. if i were a "newbie" and read this i would be backing out of this hobby because i wouldnt want to deal with some of you all (and no im not talking about everyone who has replied to this topic)

I am new and those who appear spiteful and jealous you just learn to ignore. This is the first tirade of this sort I have ever read on a photography forum or any related type of site. What does what one pay have to do with anything, if you can afford better than entry level it seems to me the way any rational person would go and even more so when you follow advice from several well regaurded sources. The Camera was cheap it was the lenses that killed me lol. And most of those into photography are not like some of those whom have posted, you get vile spiteful people in every field. And those whom I speak of know whom I mean. I could have even went with a better camera than I ended buying but I went with I thought would be right not what some jealous person or uniformed person would have me buy. .....

 

[Lakewood Photography]

Newbie with a D80 here. Personally, I've always had a passion for photography. My point and shoot cameras were suffice for the numerous requests I was receiving from family and friends to take photos for them at public and private functions. The photos were shared with their family and friends and the next thing I know I'm being asked to take family portraits, wedding photos, pet portraits, etc.

My husband surprised me with the D80 last year. I was itimidated at first, but as I'm learning about DSLRs through education and informative forums such as these, I'm learning the powerful features a DSLR offers... and am also learning the importance of good lenses.

I'm a newbie, but maybe one day I'll be as good as MAV. Fortunately, I now have the equipment and the guidance of the PROs on here to help me learn every day.

Thanks.

 

[skyvue2]

Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???

Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.

 

[Jermz_01]

Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???

Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.

a quick search at B&H Photo or Adorama, heck Ritz Camera... there are plenty of $1000+ (body only) cameras...

 

[probe1957]

Why did I buy Callaway golf clubs when I have broken 90 maybe twice in my life?

 

[CanAm]

Why did I buy Callaway golf clubs when I have broken 90 maybe twice in my life?

Ah, but that's different. Holding and using a camera is more of a primarily mental process than golfing is. Golfing is all about having a good swing and muscle control. Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones may add 25-50 yards to your initial drive.

Having a 40D versus a 20D won't make your ability to take pictures any better.

 

[Alex_B]

Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones

If they were graphite you would certainly not really enjoy them. Even worse if they were graphene let us just call them carbon-based

 

[mstephens]

Ah, but that's different. Holding and using a camera is more of a primarily mental process than golfing is. Golfing is all about having a good swing and muscle control. Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones may add 25-50 yards to your initial drive.

Having a D40 versus a D20 won't make your ability to take pictures any better.

but why buy a D20 when you have the budget for a D40. that just means you wont need to upgrade your body in 1 1/2 years.

i say if you can afford it without taking out a second morgage out on your house or giving up food for 3 months then GO FOR IT.

 

[Alex_B]

Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???

Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.

well, you can spend $7000 for the body alone if you want.

And if you go medium format, proper digital backs (that is basically just the sensor without the camera!) start around $ 8000

This world is more diverse than you may think....