sandymandy said:I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.
p.s.
please FF camera for under 1k$ w/o video mode, wifi or suchReduce it to just what we need. Aperture, shutter speed, iso.
Uhh sounds like Leica....lol
one thing that seems to be missing (which is why i think some are advocating a race to the bottom instead of a race to the top) is the if you look at the market how is it divided? APS-C sensor camera's (with the exception of the 7d and the d7000) are consumer grade bodies. FF sensor bodies are directed and marketed to Pro's. This isn't to say lower models are bad. If your experience is with a P&S, just making that step into a t3i with kit lens is a huge WOW experience. And from there you move up the tiers as your experience builds. Most causal users will never actually outgrow this camera! Then you get to higher level APS-C, all the way up to 7d then after that it's FF.
And that leads me to that idea of racing to the bottom instead of racing to the top! Yeah, canon ccould cut quality control on FF sensor lines - that would cut the cost. But it would also lead to a hit or miss sensor. They could wrap that hit or miss sensor in a plastic body, give the minimal amount of features, assemble it with cheap labor - then push it out at under a grand. But why would they do that when they could offer a much better APS-C alternative?
I could see canon making such a move if they weren't making pro product as well. A super cheap no quality control FF would cheapen everything else in the canon line. And so the alternative to this is used, cause older tech is cheaper than new tech if your trying to stay on the cutting edge (yeah, on that level I'd much rather the R&D team be working on ways to increase DR and other things on their pro sensor line rather than spending time plotting out a rebel FF).
What I really don't get here is why people tend to seem so down on the used market???? Granted most of my used stuff is lenses, but, I would buy a used body as well (I'm weighing options now, a used 5d2, a new 6d, a new/used if i find one mk3, or a used 1dmk4 - don't really need to move on it till spring so i am seeing what happens).
So feel free! There are FF options under a grand! And yeah, as with all things in an expensive area like photography, you make trade off's when you buy. Look at lenses. In a pinch you can snag the $100 50 mm 1.8, and the IQ on it isn't half bad, but the build q is horrid (i know many who have had to bring the camera into the shop cause in the summer the plastic will expand and the lens will be stuck on the body). and in the L range lenses - yeah when I bought my 70-200, I wanted it to be 2.8 but couldn't quite afford the one with IS, so i saved x 2 by snagging a used one without IS (it's now one of most used lenses!!!!). We all make trade offs when we buy. And yeah, Canon knows there is a used market (On canon's end, why waste factory time making cheap FF's when better quality used ones are out there????). Let the used market take care of those who want FF but can't leap into one of the newer systems.
sandymandy said:I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.
p.s.
please FF camera for under 1k$ w/o video mode, wifi or such
Uhh sounds like Leica....lol
Reread above...lol
Also, taking video out wouldn't be wise as it would cut the potential market for it drastically (unless they really limited it and stripped it of a live view function too) - from the accounting dept side of things any sub $1000 body is going to make less total $$$ per body than the higher level ones. For the sub $1000 level, it's all about volume. And if your going to sell a crippled FF camera in that range it would have to have video because there are a ton of video people that would buy it. I never use video, but, if it helps drive sales and doesn't really harm anything else, why not?
Back to the biggest point of all though, seriously think about the used market! 2 of my lenses - used, both of my flashes - used. I tend to trust B&H and adorama with used stuff. Got my 70-200 from b&H, had it now for well over a year and the thing is awesome! And I just picked up a used 16-35L v2, I see no flaws in it all so far. The only reason I'm not leaping on a used 5d2 right now is because I want to see what the 6d can do, and if that sucks then I am snagging another mk3 (shooting weddings and having 2 would just make sense no one body works one way the other works another way kind of stuff). And if i am waiting till spring, there may just be a few mk3's onm the used market (think about people that snagged a mk3 but actively saving for 1dx, once goal is met, sell mk3 snag 1dx).
If you want FF and under a grand - snag a 5d classic at $750, then buy a few cheap manual flashes and a few cheap transmitters.
Upvote
0
