...and I want it to cost $1000

[Roger Hicks]

Why do people persist in putting fantasy price tags on dream cameras?

Most dream cameras could, in fact, be built as long as they don't break physical laws, i.e. you can't have an 18-200mm f/1 lens that's the size of a 50mm. The only real question is whether anyone can (or is prepared to) pay the millions that would be required in R&D.

But if you're going to put a fantasy price tag on a camera, why stick at $1000? Why not $100? Or $10? Or $1? Or free?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Murchu]

Ok, I'm in - $1 M9 😛

Seriously though, most of us have both budget constraints and value perceptions, and most often in life are maximising utility. I do this with travel all the time, for example if I want to go to Barcelona and Paris equally as much, and the flights for one are a fraction of the cost as for the other at that point, I will go with the cheaper option, and use the excess cash in other enjoyable ways.

Maybe I'm different, but I don't think so, and think most of us are in life to maximise pleasure for ourselves. And back to that M9, for me that 6 grand is just poor value when I see I can make it go further for me. Those words 'for me' being the key ones 🙂

EDIT: As for that $1000 price tag, thats just people putting their own value on such a camera/ product. Nothing wrong in my opinion in people saying what they will pay (and not pay) for something. Lots of stuff I would (or would not) buy if the price was different, as it is for most of us..

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . EDIT: As for that $1000 price tag, thats just people putting their own value on such a camera/ product. Nothing wrong in my opinion in people saying what they will pay (and not pay) for something. Lots of stuff I would (or would not) buy if the price was different, as it is for most of us..

Much as I agree with the rest of your post, I just can't see the argument for unrealistic fantasy prices. Your $1 example demonstrates it perfectly. OF COURSE I'd pay $1, $10, $100 or $1000 for an M9. But not $10,000, because I'd have some difficulty in finding it. That doesn't mean I think it "should" (or even "could") cost something I could afford fairly easily, just because that smaller sum is what it's worth to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[haempe]

It's rational thinking.
What helps a 18-200mm f/1 lens in the size of a 50mm if I can't afford it.
It's easier to imagine a producer break the laws of Nature, than to imagine I would spend 5000 bucks for a lens... 🙄

 

[krötenblender]

But if you're going to put a fantasy price tag on a camera, why stick at $1000? Why not $100? Or $10? Or $1? Or free?

Lack of fantasy while dreaming...

 

[Brian Legge]

I had a hard time justifying $500 for a 35mm 1.4 lens. At $400, I was perfectly fine paying for it.

I know a Rollei with a 2.8 planar would be a dream camera of sorts. At the same time, I'm not willing to put down more than $700 on it. And there simply aren't any out there in good, useable condition around the price tag. Perhaps my comfort spending more on a camera will change in time. Or perhaps it will always the the camera that got away.

In either case, money absolutely makes a difference in these discussions

 

[Murchu]

Much as I agree with the rest of your post, I just can't see the argument for unrealistic fantasy prices. Your $1 example demonstrates it perfectly. OF COURSE I'd pay $1, $10, $100 or $1000 for an M9. But not $10,000, because I'd have some difficulty in finding it. That doesn't mean I think it "should" (or even "could") cost something I could afford fairly easily, just because that smaller sum is what it's worth to me.

Cheers,

R.

Well, I hope it was clear my tongue was very much stuck firmly in my cheek when I said $1 🙂

More seriously though, as you say companies smash our expectations of what is possible all the time, yet we have an ardent band of folks on the web (not including you in his group), that are constantly telling us what is and isn't possible. This I find ridiculous for a number of reasons, the simplest of all being that innovation does not work in a straight line like most would have us believe. I'm not a straight line kinda guy, and anyone involved in the business of innovation is not either, so why rule out something like the hypothetical digital rangefinder costing less..

 

[Murchu]

Lack of fantasy while dreaming...

Lol, I agree - a lot of out of focus imaginations 😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

I had a hard time justifying $500 for a 35mm 1.4 lens. At $400, I was perfectly fine paying for it.

I know a Rollei with a 2.8 planar would be a dream camera of sorts. At the same time, I'm not willing to put down more than $700 on it. And there simply aren't any out there in good, useable condition around the price tag. Perhaps my comfort spending more on a camera will change in time. Or perhaps it will always the the camera that got away.

In either case, money absolutely makes a difference in these discussions

Oh, sure, but that's just a price/demand curve: "I'm getting one of those tomorrow" to "I'd have to think hard before spending that sort of money" to "I doubt I'd ever be able to afford/justify one of those."

Besides, I wasn't talking about extant cameras. I was talking about cameras that don't exist; that probably have a very small market; and would require millions in R&D.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gavinlg]

Yeah this really annoys me too. A lot of it comes from 'I can buy this camera used for X amount - why should I pay X amount for that new product' - which of course is a blatantly stupid comparison.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I think it's the internet effect, Roger. People are more price aware since they can instantly compare the costs of goods from all sources. Price-cutting is all over the net. Miniscule and relatively unimportant details are evaluated ad nauseum. Sometimes, real comparative value advantages come along — say, the X-Pro1 v. the M9 (I'm not looking for a fight here, just talking perceptions).

Against this background come along people like me who can express any wild thoughts or wishes which, in an earlier day, would have been kept safely ensconced in their head with no means to broadcast them. Now, we can say (almost) anything to a wide audience and with impunity.

 

[Murchu]

Oh, sure, but that's just a price/demand curve: "I'm getting one of those tomorrow" to "I'd have to think hard before spending that sort of money" to "I doubt I'd ever be able to afford/justify one of those."

Besides, I wasn't talking about extant cameras. I was talking about cameras that don't exist; that probably have a very small market; and would require millions in R&D.

Cheers,

R.

Can we not just focus on being photographers, and telling camera companies what we really want, and let them focus on the semantics of delivering it.. 😉

 

[Murchu]

Yeah this really annoys me too. A lot of it comes from 'I can buy this camera used for X amount - why should I pay X amount for that new product' - which of course is a blatantly stupid comparison.

I would argue, that to your average camera company exec, they are far more interested in what people are actually going to do, rather than if it is a fair comparison, and rightfully so. If your potential customers are not buying your product because of X, Y or Z out there in the market, then that's critical for a company to know. No product exists in a vacuum..

 

[Sparrow]

... what about Dyson?

 

[Murchu]

... what about Dyson?

Whoah..

(in my finest Keanu Reeves impression)

😀

 

[gavinlg]

I would argue, that to your average camera company exec, they are far more interested in what people are actually going to do, rather than if it is a fair comparison, and rightfully so. If your potential customers are not buying your product because of X, Y or Z out there in the market, then that's critical for a company to know. No product exists in a vacuum..

When you're talking about a digital camera compared to an extinct film system camera, they really don't compare.

 

[robert blu]

According to marketing principles price should be "the amount of money somebody pays in order to get the benefits the acquired item gives him".
To answer your question Roger I simply think that many people would like to have the pleasures to own/use a certain camera but are not ready to pay the proposed price. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is when somebody says "that camera should cost (me) xxx no more". Unfortunately business is business and does not work in this way.
It seems me strange another effect when speaking about cameras prices with friends or collegues: many of them make comments about spending a few thousand euros for a camera wich is just a pleasure item (at least for us amateurs). In the same time they spend maybe even more money for a carbon fiber bicycle or an high speed motorcycle (which they change each three or four years, not like somebody still driving a beautiful BMW 🙂) and these are as well items to get pleasures ...
This is only my opinion which could be wrong...
robert

 

[Murchu]

When you're talking about a digital camera compared to an extinct film system camera, they really don't compare.

Well whether you feel they compare or not, where people put their money is the salient fact. Now, whether a camera company can do anything about or not is another thing. My point was just that to them it is valuable information. For example if I am Fuji and selling X-Pro's, I want to know who is buying them, and of the potential sales I have lost, where I have lost them to. So, people comparing current digital cameras with long discontinued used film cameras may not be a fair comparison, it is still valid to know what factors are influencing people.

Well, to a camera company interested in its profit line and long term commercial viability/ success. To be honest, personally I do not care a whit about business concerns of camera companies, but seeing as so many here do, and usually to deny the possibility of alternatives, I try to chime in and round out what I see as an unbalanced view.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . What is wrong is when somebody says "that camera should cost (me) xxx no more". Unfortunately business is business and does not work in this way. . . .

Dear Robert,

Exactly. It's the 'should' that is meaningless.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . that to them it is valuable information. . . . .

Not unless it's realistic, and it was the unrealistic aspect (fantasy low prices) that I was talking about.

Cheers,

R.