...and I want it to cost $1000

[Roger Hicks]

The problem with the $1,000 fantasy is the fantasist has failed to account for the devaluation of currencies. 🙂

As someone said recently, "Never mind 'What the world really needs is a good ten cent cigar'. What the world really needs is a good ten-cent dime."

Or, indeed, a proper, sterling silver half crown.

EDIT: And I'll take a Gandolfi at twelve guineas, please...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Avotius]

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks. I'm just not sure that there's any other sort of capitalism...

Cheers,

R.

Then come to China and you will be shocked.


ps. I once talked to a guy who said its a pity you cant just download a camera online, like pirating it. I wonder if that plays a small part in the mentality where for many years a sort of free for all on pirated material has lowreed our expectations on price. Of course I could be talking out of my rear, but I do live in China afterall.

 

[JohnTF]

Perhaps a balance should be sought.

If there is a piece of equipment that you require, or allows you, to even capture one handsome image, it will be worth what ever you "had" to pay for it.

Anything that allows you to work better, more economically (time wise), or helps you overcome some limitation, has significant value.

What you are willing to pay is often ephemeral, and cash might be the cheapest investment you make, relative to travel, looking to see, artistic development, display, and that which you cannot buy, such as time and the physical ability to work.

If you need it, and it is your passion, you will find a way to get it. It may take patience, you may get only a slight reduction, perhaps the VAT, or purchase it used, but if it serves your needs, by all means buy it. The value relative to the purchase price should be difficult to quantify if your goal is to make good images.

It is best if you forget what you pay in the usefulness of the kit, and then it becomes of value.

And, for those sweet deals you stumble across from time to time, perhaps if you are keeping score, it helps even it out for the bean counters. How many points did I "earn" when a friend at a shop shipped me a scratched body M2 with a cloudy 35mm lens that turned out to have been a rebuilt body with an M4 set of frames. Cleaned up, the lens sale paid for it all. OK, the meter never worked.

Are you a bean counter or photographer?

I have a friend who just thinks any camera over $50, or free, as in the case of the Casio he uses that was lost and never claimed that he has used for years, is a waste. He even was shooting at low resolution to save on SD cards.

A different world. When he asks what I paid for any camera, I simply say $10,000, just to hear what he says, because any answer I give is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the most expensive camera does not a serious photographer make, however, it is a shame if your kit limits you.

And, if you can help new talent with some advise and equipment, it is not a bad way to invest, we all see the altruistic side, and will you put a price on that as well?

Shopping for equipment in terms of some fantasy is just not a serious part of the process, though it may be fun in and of itself, just don't take it too seriously.


Regards, John

 

[E__WOK]

It's part of human nature to want the best thing with every feature for little to no cost.

In my industry, some of the products I deal with are flashlights and custom knives. The flashlight guys want the brightest and smallest light with extra long burntime and it must have multimodes that the end user can program at a price that is impossible to make for.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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... 🙄

Now, let's assume that all elephants are spherical (pink goes without saying), and friction is negligible. Three should fit in a $1000 Audi Quattro. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's part of human nature to want the best thing with every feature for little to no cost. . .

True, but it's part of human intelligence to work out that it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Then come to China and you will be shocked.


ps. I once talked to a guy who said its a pity you cant just download a camera online, like pirating it. I wonder if that plays a small part in the mentality where for many years a sort of free for all on pirated material has lowreed our expectations on price. Of course I could be talking out of my rear, but I do live in China afterall.

Para 1: Well, I've been to China, and the capitalism I've seen there is as conservative as it gets, so I fear I'll have to ask you for further explanation again. Sorry.

Para 2: I'm sure you're right.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Now, let's assume that all elephants are spherical (pink goes without saying), and friction is negligible. Three should fit in a $1000 Audi Quattro. 😉

You'd probably have to tie the doors shut with light inextensible string...

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

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.. 😉

For a lot of cameras, I think companies listen to consumers rather than photographers.

 

[JohnTF]

For a lot of cameras, I think companies listen to consumers rather than photographers.

Those markets used to be much more divergent, and when they were, the photographers with lower funds used to bend what they could to their purpose.

Regards, John

 

[V-12]

Satisfying a fantasy for $1000 makes me think it isn't much of a fantasy. It shows how cheaply people value their alleged passion for photography. With all the things they need the camera to do within that $1000 budget I would wonder if they are taking any photographs with their current equipment. It is symptomatic of the permanent state of disatisfaction that people get themselves into.

$1000 is cheap for a good camera, but putting a figure of $1000 on the fantasy camera displays more about their own self distrust than it does about being sensible with their money. Because at $1000 they know in the back of their minds that when the next fantasy camera comes along they can happily put the first on Ebay and take the hit. So $1000 buys a permanent state of fantasy, one where it could be $1000 each and every year spent on a new fantasy camera. Over ten years they spend $10,000, where others less inclined to fear their own judgement might have spent $5000 on a Leica that has lasted ten years (and more). $1000 is a good price at which to consume cameras, but it is nothing to do with the fantasy of taking a good photography, and the value of that is known only by a few people who buy a camera. It could be $50 for a Holga, or $30,000 on an S2, but if either fulfill the brief it is money well spent.

 

[krötenblender]

$1000 is cheap for a good camera, but putting a figure of $1000 on the fantasy camera displays more about their own self distrust than it does about being sensible with their money.

I had many very good cameras for much less than $1000, including lenses.

The value of ones photography and his dedication to it is in no way connected to the price-tag of the equipment.

 

[Murchu]

For a lot of cameras, I think companies listen to consumers rather than photographers.

Yes, but look where it got Fuji when they listened to photographers 😉

 

[Murchu]

Very true, but none that I know of was designed by a fantasist on the internet. That's the point: I have little time for those who say that their dream camera, often of an idiosyncratic, novel and unproven design -- one that has never, in fact, been made --- 'should' cost $1000.

Cheers,

R.

In fairness, how do you know what has influenced camera designers. To be honest, personally if I was looking to make a better hammer, I would be looking at carpentry forums, so who is to say those looking to make better cameras do not look at camera forums.

Of course the rub in all this, is that I do not believe many camera makers are interested in making better cameras, and most are instead trapped in incremental design and production loops, and possibly the most imaginative thing they've accomplished is in selling dslrs to a much wider swath of the market than before.

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, but look where it got Fuji when they listened to photographers 😉

Where did it get them?

 

[Murchu]

Where did it get them?

Well, I would have thought it was clear the X line was regarded as quite the success, and raised Fuji's professional/ semi-pro digital division from the ashes. Are there aspects of the success of this line you contend? Am curious more than anything, as I know you're an X-Pro owner.

 

[jsrockit]

Murchu, I guess what I mean is that Fujifilm X100 and X--Pro1 is a success amongst serious photographers, but not with consumers. Fuji is seemingly the exception, but they release tons of cheap consumer cameras every year. I always thought the X100 was partly a labor of love that just happen to exceed expectations and sell well. They didn't create it to cash in. I would imagine the success of the X100 and X-Pro1 is a drop in the bucket financially for a company of Fuji's size.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In fairness, how do you know what has influenced camera designers. To be honest, personally if I was looking to make a better hammer, I would be looking at carpentry forums, so who is to say those looking to make better cameras do not look at camera forums.

Of course the rub in all this, is that I do not believe many camera makers are interested in making better cameras, and most are instead trapped in incremental design and production loops, and possibly the most imaginative thing they've accomplished is in selling dslrs to a much wider swath of the market than before.

Para. 1, yes, sure, consider any and all input; but equally, there's a difference between accepting input; rejecting nonsense; and designing a camera.

Para. 2, well, define 'better'. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that proportionately more SLRs were sold to 'keen amateurs'' than DSLRs, but again, I'd need to define 'keen amateur'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Kent]

It's all about dreaming. Who said that dreaming includes any rationality?

We all have a certain limit when a price starts to "hurt". This limit depends on annual income, familiy situation, debts, running costs etc. etc.

If someone earns 1 Mio $ a year but lives a "normal" live, the price for a Leica M9 is easily paid.
If someone is out of work or works in a low-paid job with a familiy to feed, even US$ 100,- is a lot.

For me, personally, my "hurting limit" for a cam is at about US$1500,- and for a lens at about US$500,-. I could afford more, but I don't want to spend more. It would give me a bad feeling that I paid that much money for my personal hobby. I'd rather spend more money on holidays with my family.

I can dream about the perfect cam and dream that is is available for US$ 1000,-.

After all, it's all about dreaming.

 

[Murchu]

Murchu, I guess what I mean is that Fujifilm X100 and X--Pro1 is a success amongst serious photographers, but not with consumers. Fuji is seemingly the exception, but they release tons of cheap consumer cameras every year. I always thought the X100 was partly a labor of love that just happen to exceed expectations and sell well. They didn't create it to cash in. I would imagine the success of the X100 and X-Pro1 is a drop in the bucket financially for a company of Fuji's size.

Perhaps. In any event, think the X series shows the benefit of passionate photographers input into the camera design process, and think it shows. That was really my original point, of the benefits to be seen by paying attention to photographers. Ricoh does similarly with their GR-D, from what I've seen, and feedback from their users is fed back into the process be it firmware or the design for the next model and it shows, even if something like the GR-D range is a niche product.

Para. 1, yes, sure, consider any and all input; but equally, there's a difference between accepting input; rejecting nonsense; and designing a camera.

Para. 2, well, define 'better'. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that proportionately more SLRs were sold to 'keen amateurs'' than DSLRs, but again, I'd need to define 'keen amateur'.

Cheers,

R.

Agreed.

Well by 'better' I would mean cameras that fit users needs as best as possible, whatever those needs might be. Re: dslr's I see them to be more ubiquitous than I ever saw film slr's to be, at least that is my perception, and thus conclusion that Canon, Nikon, et al's most telling contribution to the camera landscape has been by broadening the market, and selling dslr's further and wider than before. 'Keen amateurs' would only be a subset of that market. As I say, just my own personal perception, but feel sales figures per year would back it up, when comparing the number of dslrs sold each year, versus the amount of film slr's sold per year in the past.