Why so much?
Ok, so here's a naive question:
Why do accessories for SLRs still cost so much?
I'm one of probably millions who jumped on the DSLR bandwagon when the Canon fired the first shot across the bow of absurdly expensive DSLR bodies with the original Digital Rebel. "Wow, a *real* camera for $930?! Sweet!"
Now in high school and college I'd shot with my dad's fancy Minolta Maxxum, as well as my grandfather's old Pentax and Leica, but mainly I was just putting it on Automatic and firing away. I got a few nice snapshots here and there, but was I paying attention to aperture/shutter speed/ISO? Not really, even though I spent plenty of time in my high school's darkroom developing B&W for the newspaper and yearbook. I was far more focused on "just shooting". I thought the auto-focus and rapid-fire shutter of the Maxxum made me a pro. Hah.
Anyways, getting back to my story, so I get my D300. I shoot with the 18-55mm for a good year or so. I start messing with pushing the ISO higher. Oooh look, I can shoot in low light. But oh crap, it sure is grainy, and why are all my photos so orange? (I wasn't to discover white balance for another year.)
So a cousin's husband encouraged me to pick up the "nifty 50" 1.8mm lens, and after trying his, I was sold. It was my first lens. I recently took 88 portraits of my son's preschool with one that again was my first purchase after replacing my stolen D300 with a used D400.
But now... my more recent walkaround lens, the 35mm 2.0 is broken. After disassembling and reassembling, it may or may not be usable (sorry Scott -- I'm going to mess with it a bit more.)
So I'm looking at replacing it. And I'm looking at other lens. And so, back to the topic at hand, I'm thinking, "Why are Canon (and presumably Nikon) lenses so freaking much?"
Is it because:
1) Good glass is so expensive to manufacture/tool?
2) Professional photographers will pay anything, which drives the price up?
3) Amateur photographers will pay anything, which drives the price up?
What really confuses me is how Canon can continue to sell EF-S lenses like the 10-22 for $700. I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens? Somebody who isn't planning to upgrade to a full-frame sensor, right? But then, would somebody not planning to upgrade really have a need for an ultra-wide angle lens? There should be scads of these things sitting gathering dust, and therefore the price should drop, no?
It also amazes me that so many people on these boards talk about this lens or that lens and we're talking $500-$1000 a pop. And I'm not just talking about you pros. I'm talking about you hard working amateurs that don't ever plan to try selling a photo. I mean... $1000!
Is SLR photography really that much of a rich man's sport? I guess so. It's a little disheartening though.
And yeah, I suppose I should stop my whining, swallow my pride, and look into Tamrons and Sigmas.
But I think about the folks I bought my D400 from. And my brother, who just bought an XSi in anticipation of a new baby arriving in December. And I think, sure, they (and he will have) shot with the 18-55 kit lens for a year or show. And they'll love that there's no shutter lag. And it's nice to have a "real camera" in your hand.
But knowing my brother (and in light of these folks selling me their camera), they'll eventually realize, hrm, this camera is kind of a pain to lug around. And hrm, my photos aren't *that* much better than my little Canon 950IS that I used to carry around with me everywhere, and I used to get a lot more candid shots because it was easy to keep in my pocket. And holy crap, a zoom lens will cost me $300 (and that's at the waaaay low-end of the scale for that new well-reviewed 55-250mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS)?
If I wanted a zoom that big that I can easily carry around, I'll just buy a _____________ (any number of compact ultra-zooms available on the market today).
Is it like razors and the blades? Canon and Nikon have sold some really inexpensive handles (DSLRs), but are gouging folks on the blades (lenses)? I guess I wouldn't feel so bad if they had really given away the DSLR.
Ugh. Sorry for venting here, but I'm just bummed about my 35mm, bummed that I'm not rich enough to not have to agonize over replacing it, and bummed that nobody makes a camera that people like my brother *really* need -- basically something fast (shutter lag shutter lag shutter lag) enough to shoot kids. It doesn't need detachable lenses. A big aperture would be nice for low-light, but people like that leave the flash on Auto all the time anyways.
Feh.
Why do accessories for SLRs still cost so much?
I'm one of probably millions who jumped on the DSLR bandwagon when the Canon fired the first shot across the bow of absurdly expensive DSLR bodies with the original Digital Rebel. "Wow, a *real* camera for $930?! Sweet!"
Now in high school and college I'd shot with my dad's fancy Minolta Maxxum, as well as my grandfather's old Pentax and Leica, but mainly I was just putting it on Automatic and firing away. I got a few nice snapshots here and there, but was I paying attention to aperture/shutter speed/ISO? Not really, even though I spent plenty of time in my high school's darkroom developing B&W for the newspaper and yearbook. I was far more focused on "just shooting". I thought the auto-focus and rapid-fire shutter of the Maxxum made me a pro. Hah.
Anyways, getting back to my story, so I get my D300. I shoot with the 18-55mm for a good year or so. I start messing with pushing the ISO higher. Oooh look, I can shoot in low light. But oh crap, it sure is grainy, and why are all my photos so orange? (I wasn't to discover white balance for another year.)
So a cousin's husband encouraged me to pick up the "nifty 50" 1.8mm lens, and after trying his, I was sold. It was my first lens. I recently took 88 portraits of my son's preschool with one that again was my first purchase after replacing my stolen D300 with a used D400.
But now... my more recent walkaround lens, the 35mm 2.0 is broken. After disassembling and reassembling, it may or may not be usable (sorry Scott -- I'm going to mess with it a bit more.)
So I'm looking at replacing it. And I'm looking at other lens. And so, back to the topic at hand, I'm thinking, "Why are Canon (and presumably Nikon) lenses so freaking much?"
Is it because:
1) Good glass is so expensive to manufacture/tool?
2) Professional photographers will pay anything, which drives the price up?
3) Amateur photographers will pay anything, which drives the price up?
What really confuses me is how Canon can continue to sell EF-S lenses like the 10-22 for $700. I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens? Somebody who isn't planning to upgrade to a full-frame sensor, right? But then, would somebody not planning to upgrade really have a need for an ultra-wide angle lens? There should be scads of these things sitting gathering dust, and therefore the price should drop, no?
It also amazes me that so many people on these boards talk about this lens or that lens and we're talking $500-$1000 a pop. And I'm not just talking about you pros. I'm talking about you hard working amateurs that don't ever plan to try selling a photo. I mean... $1000!
Is SLR photography really that much of a rich man's sport? I guess so. It's a little disheartening though.
And yeah, I suppose I should stop my whining, swallow my pride, and look into Tamrons and Sigmas.
But I think about the folks I bought my D400 from. And my brother, who just bought an XSi in anticipation of a new baby arriving in December. And I think, sure, they (and he will have) shot with the 18-55 kit lens for a year or show. And they'll love that there's no shutter lag. And it's nice to have a "real camera" in your hand.
But knowing my brother (and in light of these folks selling me their camera), they'll eventually realize, hrm, this camera is kind of a pain to lug around. And hrm, my photos aren't *that* much better than my little Canon 950IS that I used to carry around with me everywhere, and I used to get a lot more candid shots because it was easy to keep in my pocket. And holy crap, a zoom lens will cost me $300 (and that's at the waaaay low-end of the scale for that new well-reviewed 55-250mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS)?
If I wanted a zoom that big that I can easily carry around, I'll just buy a _____________ (any number of compact ultra-zooms available on the market today).
Is it like razors and the blades? Canon and Nikon have sold some really inexpensive handles (DSLRs), but are gouging folks on the blades (lenses)? I guess I wouldn't feel so bad if they had really given away the DSLR.
Ugh. Sorry for venting here, but I'm just bummed about my 35mm, bummed that I'm not rich enough to not have to agonize over replacing it, and bummed that nobody makes a camera that people like my brother *really* need -- basically something fast (shutter lag shutter lag shutter lag) enough to shoot kids. It doesn't need detachable lenses. A big aperture would be nice for low-light, but people like that leave the flash on Auto all the time anyways.
Feh.
0
Comments
When those friend talked to me about their plan to acquire the DSLR, I always ask one typical question - are you serious about photography or just want to have the photo from the family and record of some events such holiday or birthday parties.
Many of them just want to follow the trend of the DSLR and pay for the cheap body then complain about the cost of lens, flash, tripod, and ......
If they are not ready to go into photography, or don't have enough time to pay with the toy, it is better off to buy the prosumer range. As the prosumer ie. the Canon G9, Panasonic FZ18 are good enough for day-to-day shoting. The best of all, there is not so many accessories to buy.
Having a DSLR, is very addictive. I keep on upgrading the lens, flash, tripod, studio light to "perfect" the shots. Just a quick count, I spent almost 20k in the past 5 years on the collection of those toys.
Just telling myself how to justify the high price of the lens, I visited the Canon website http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/ and learn about the technology of the lens and how to make the lens.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Let's start with the rationale behind why so many folks justify the costs of a dSLR versus a film SLR.
A film SLR costs considerably less than a dSLR at the initial purchase. You can still get a Canon EOS Elan 7NE body for $350USD, brand new. Compared to even an entry level dSLR that's not a bad price, until you consider the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).
Last I checked, it cost me around $6.50 per 24 exposure roll of film and processing and snapshot printing using the very cheapest, but reasonable quality, film and processing. Even the local X-Mart was more like $10 for Kodak 24 exposure film and processing, which is what most people would do. Professional film and processing would be more yet. Let's use the $10 figure just for fun.
If you shot just 2 rolls of film a month for a year that's $240 a year. If you want to share the images with others then you either have to scan the film, scan the prints or send the film away to be scanned at even more cost.
At just 2 years you have easily closed the gap between film and digital camera costs, but the images you see from any dSLR usually just seem better somehow. Plus dSLRs can have multiple ISOs on the same card. Film requires multiple rolls and gives fairly poor results at high ISOs. Plus most people are now shooting a lot more images than ever before and winding up with more "keepers" as well, reinforcing the digital/dSLR concept.
So dSLRs have some extra features that film SLRs will never have and as you shoot more and more the TCO goes down, way down (until the camera breaks.)
As you mentioned, the dSLR has several advantages over the P&S and advanced digicams so if you want those features, the dSLR style camera is the only way to get them.
Now to lenses.
If you stay with primes from any manufacturer you can get by with pretty good quality and not have a horrible investment in glass. If you purchase older manual focus lenses and adapt them to your camera you can realize some fantastic values. But, ..., you give up a tremendous amount of speed and convenience with the old lenses/primes versus modern zoom lenses.
No one is forcing the masses to choose modern AF zoom lenses of very high quality. The differences are now obvious and evident on any computer monitor when the images are viewed at 100 percent.
If you could have seen what older zoom lenses provided at the dawn of their development you would thank your lucky stars for what we have available today.
Is photography expensive? You better believe it surely can be. At the top tier it can seem frighteningly expensive. Just explore medium format digital equipment to put those costs into perspective.
The trick is to combine the concept of "need fulfilment" and a true budget when shopping for equipment.
For myself, I have only bought 1 new dSLR in my life, and that was way after it was announced and the prices were fairly leveled off and I found a discounted price on top. That camera is the Canon 40D and I purchased it new in January of this year, 2008. I had reviewed my needs and saved for the purchase and had decided that the 40D was an appropriate body to meet my needs. I still love the camera, even in light of the new offerings.
My best cameras are now almost 5 years old, the venerable Canon 1D MKII, and they are still very modern cameras by many measures and they are still very responsive and capable. It will probably be another couple of years before they are both replaced in my arsenal.
In the end, you can control your own costs by controlling your wishes. If you are not shooting professionally why must you think you need equipment at the professional level? If all you need are small print sizes, and that's what I mostly need too for personal purposes, then purchase accordingly.
I'm taking a trip next week and for this particular journey I will use a single Canon XT/350D and some very reasonable lenses. I don't want to worry about loss/damage and I'll be in situations where the equipment will be very much at risk.
Will I get good results? They will be good enough for my purposes and that's all that matters.
But then this Sunday I have an important Boy Scout event to cover, and I'll use the best equipment that I have. The 2 Scouts getting their Eagle are worth it.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It's more because of what market they're trying to go for. My recent searches have been more with Nikon lenses, and only looked at a few Canon's full frame offerings.
But in my research I found that they have a big emphasis on the consumer market. There are many cheap, relatively lower quality optics, and slower lenses being produced for that range of consumer. Then there seems to be a big jump from that to really high-grade fixed aperture lenses. And these lenses are growing a lot in both size and price in the process.
We can use wide-angle on the DX format as an example there is the 12 to 24 F4 at about $900. And other than that option there really isn't much else from Nikon for anything DX except for the 16 to 85 and 3.5 to 5.6 VR which I do like the idea of a 24mm VR @ F3.5 but in its construction and speed through the rest of the range is much more on the consumer range. And that's it for options.
With full frame you have two main Nikon options depending how wide you want to go. The 14 to 24 F2 .8, and the ones I lean towards the 17 to 35 F2.8. Both of these lenses are about $1500, huge and heavy, and then the next Nikon Zoom is a 24 to 120 at 3.5 to 5.6 making even a bigger gap between it and the high end than with DX (I guess that's understandable though considering the body is about an actual thousand dollars initial investment at least)
The shocker now is I'm going to mention Olympus. But I look for wide-angle so it's a good comparison. With all of their lenses though it seems like there's a very tiered approach that's laid out lot clearer than any of the other manufacturers. Instead of say putting a L in the title for pro-glass there are three distinct classes of lenses, taking a lot of the guesswork out of the consumer. You know exactly what type of lens you're getting and what type of features that should have. All of the classes have relatively high quality for what they are but just like the standard itself its compromises. They manufacture lenses was slightly variable apertures allowing for smaller and cheaper lenses. They have the consumer-based 9 to 18 f4 - 5.6 and there's no official price for it yet and from comparisons to other lenses and online "pre orders" months before anything was going to ship its a huge range but somewhere between 400-600, and I'm guessing in the lower middle portion of that. Then you go to the high-grade with the 11 to 22 2.8 to 3.5 which is around $650 and is a weatherproof lens with amazing optics. Then the superhigh grade of Olympus lenses get a fixed aperture like the 7 to 14 f4 which is about 1500. And if were including the 24 mm equivalent lenses there is the 12-60 f2.8-4 which is on a very different class of construction of the consumer-based Nikon models as well as faster but it also is almost twice as expensive being about $900. But the fact that Olympus offers four different lenses with four very distinct purposes in the range that I'm looking at is one of the things that really surprised me when I started researching compared to Nikon. And the same holds true to Canon.
one thing I learned this summer is that Costco actually has great prices for developing film. They would do a 36 exposure roll developed and scanned for about five dollars which is what the local pro place costs just to develop, the funniest thing is they give you higher resolution scans than the base quality go get from the actual Photo shop. 3087x 2048, I just wish they did more than C41 I need an economical way to develop my black-and-white film, or to find a friend with a few spare hours, then break out some old CDs
Even developing and scanning my own film it started to become too expensive, but beyond the price the other advantage of digital is also lets your ideas and techniques progress a lot faster, when you accidentally stumble upon something you see it in the LCD, not coming out of the development tank a day or more later, and you can try and take advantage and expand on it right then and there.
I think this statement is the most important ones that so far, and probably the most overlooked on Internet forums in general.
Most of my work has been done with either film cameras and lenses from the 80s and 90s or a D50 and those lenses along with one or two new ones, nothing too fancy, a huge chunk of my recent work was even done with a point-and-shoot camera, but lots of time behind the viewfinder developing techniques to exploit the advantages and sometimes even disadvantages of my equipment has been the most important thing.
.
But I believe very few folks are upgrading from film -> dSLR. I think the far more common move is from digital point-and-shoot -> dSLR in the mistaken belief that they will get better pictures. In reality (or in my initial experience), all they really get is the ability to take the same level of pictures, just faster.
In fact, I predict my brother will be happy with the lack of shutter lag, the number of consecutive shots he can take, and the stronger flash w/ fewer red eyes. But I also predict that the dial will be pretty much stuck on [A] for 99% of the time.
Perhaps he'll take advantage of the Basic Modes like Macro (what does that do on a dSLR w/o a Macro lens? My wife insists it helped her get close-up photos of a lizard that kept coming out blurry in [P] mode. The manual says it doesn't affect focusing mode (AI or Servo). Maybe it's just that it forces flash?
But anyways, yes, your points about dSLR vs. film are well-taken. But I don't disagree there. Compared to a film SLR, digital is clearly a better value. And as a learning tool, it gives you the ability to experiment with ISO, bracketing, all of the settings, and have that information be stored in metadata, at no cost (for film, and still very little for hard disk storage if you delete the "bad" shots.)
My point is that most people upgrading from P&S to dSLR are not looking to learn photography. They think they're going to get a faster-responding camera, which is true. But as we know (and they'll learn the hard way), that's not the only thing that will give you great photos.
Anyways, to lenses. I don't even (really) want an AF zoom. I want some decent-built and reasonably prime, like what I hear the 50mm 1.8 used to be before they started making it out of plastic. (Although I can't complain because mine has held up incredibly well.)
I'm annoyed that a lens of middling build quality (all plastic innards), the 35mm 2.0, released way back in 1990, can still command a price of $220. I suppose I'm used to computer equipment which has a high depreciation rate.
Also, it seems like the discrepancy between the price and quality of L glass vs. consumer glass is huge, with maybe the exception of the 50mm 1.8 and the aforementioned well-reviewed 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS. (That 75-300mm I had that got stolen? What a piece of junk!) It seems that by going with all plastic innards, Canon is saying, "Look, if you can't afford to buy L, you get crap. Sorry, nothing in between."
Wow! Unless you can change society into a utopia, that's the nature of the beast. By your reasoning, a seasoned professional photographer who can produce better quality images than a student taking classes should charge the same. Or, charge only .10 cents for a 4x6 because that is how much wallyworld charges per print.
3rd party manufacturers have been doing just what you prescribe. They make a product that is just a little bit cheaper, and it's also just a little bit less in quality. Nikon and Canon have decided that when they put out pro grade glass, it is going to be top quality with few compromises. Third party lenses for the most part make compromises whether it be build,IQ, or service to hit a price/performance target. If this bothers you enough, photography may not be the field or hobby for you.
Indeed I wrote that I need to suck it up and look into Sigma and Tamron lens. But what bugs me is that when Canon decides to put out consumer grade glass, it's so crappy.
That's because it's consumer grade glass that will probably be used 2-3 times a month, if that.
If Canon/Nikon didn't do that, there would be complaints they were fleecing customers because all their lenses were pro-grade and expensive.
I guess I'm just not sure why the expense of quality equipment is so baffling to you. Its the same story in any industry. Ever price high-end audio gear? Just a few years back I spent over two thousand on a CD player. Good stuff costs. Always has, always will.
That paragraph is really puzzling to me. I really don't see the connection between someone not planning to "upgrade" to a full-frame sensor and the not needing an ultra-wide lens.
So why would anyone need an ultra-wide lens on a crop body? Well, maybe they need a really wide field-of-view for the type of photography they do? I did, which is why I recently traded my 17-40 for a 10-22 lens. Where's the mystery in that?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
50mm f/1.4: $300
85mm f/1.8: $350
And there are lots of other examples too.
Huh? Back that up, bub
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I owned that lens for a long time!
28-135 IS
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/popular/16/8622258_wDNC3#5766045_ehJAp
85 1.8
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/popular/16/8622258_wDNC3#22029734_kEzrx
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/popular/16/8622258_wDNC3#22029725_BPVWQ
50 f/1.4
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/popular/16/8622258_wDNC3#13827347_Ck4Aj
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
But in my experience, electronic equipment always depreciates over time. Is that same CD player still $2000? Are there now $200 units that are of equivalent quality? That often happens with laptops, PCs, etc.
Nearly every time I see people asking in forums like this about whether they should invest in an EF-S lens, they are almost always encouraged not to waste their money, the implication being that EF-S is an inferior or at best an interim standard on your way to a "real" full-frame camera.
I'm not saying I agree. I don't plan on ever going full-frame at current price levels. Nor do I think it's inferior. But that seems to be the prevailing opinion on most photo boards I've browsed.
So with that in mind, I figured most people trying to do more wide angle photography would be angling to eventually buy a full-frame body, and therefore, not be interested in EF-S lenses. At the same time, I make the assertion that most of the people buying the Digital Rebels at Costco (and I realize now I've not taken into consideration the many many people like Ziggy who have Canon's early crop-frame high-end cameras) are not often interested in taking wide angle photos.
Huge generalizations that perhaps are wrong (at least based on the response in this thread).
But a show of hands, please -- everybody here with a crop-sensor camera -- do you lust after full-frame sensors?
I don't. And I feel like I'm in the minority. And I feel that accordingly, crop-sensor lenses should be priced cheaper to match the low price of the Digital Rebel bodies. I guess I'm nuts.
Hrm. I was not familiar with this lens. Thanks.
I suppose one enduring gripe I have is that I really want to replace my 35mm prime, but I don't want it to fail in a year after it's out of warranty. Based on the "quality" of the one that broke, I'm irritated that the only alternatives are a $429 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or a $1100 Canon 35mm f/1.4 L.
I wonder if I should go wider and get a Canon 28 f/1.8. Seems like it's one of those rare "median" lenses that Canon hasn't completely scrimped on.
(When I say crap cheap Canon lenses, I'm mainly referring to their 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, and I guess my broken 35mm f/2.0. I've been pleasantly surprised at how well my cheapo 50mm f/1.8's have held up, considering their cheap price, but I feel like the "nifty fifty" is an anomaly in Canon's low-end lineup.)
Besides, we're talking lenses here. Glass, plastic and metal. Extremely durable products when built well. Unlike semiconductors where we keep putting more and more and more on the same piece of silicon the cost of manufacture of a lens is not dropping rapidly over time. Good lenses cost a lot to make and a lot to buy. But, they hold up and last -- they don't drop in value as a result. Unlike CD players and computers.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Indeed. I shot with it for years and it is a workhorse of a lens. I have a 24-105/4L now and it is a bit sweeter, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 28-135.
Also, the 70-300 IS is a very good lens (unlike the 75-300). The various flavors of 70-200 get all the press, but in many situations I prefer the 70-300 for its smaller size, lighter weight and extra reach on my full frame 5D.
As for my 50/1.4, you'll have to pry it out cold dead fingers. The 50/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses, second only to the 135/2.
As for FF vs. Crop, there isn't really a "better." If money were no object, I'd end up with one of each and choose the body based on what I was shooting. From a pure economic point of view: if you have a 40/50D, it is cheaper to buy a 10-22 that it is to buy a 5D and a 17-40. On the other hand, if you have a 5D, it is cheaper to buy a 50D and a 70-200/2.8 IS than a 300/2.8. Going full frame is still much more expensive than crop particularly when you factor in the extra cost for telephoto lenses (assuming you need them).
The camera depreciates quickly. The lens will probably outlast several camera bodies. My 28-135 has already outlasted one. That camera dropped over $400 in value and in that time my 28-135 lost like $20.
dak.smugmug.com
But you're wonderin why these lenses from N & C cost so much too.
and you hit the nail squarely on the head with your first guess: it cost a bunch to grind these things: acurately.
Of course it cost over a billion dollars to grind the Hubble: Inacurately....hence they sent a repair facility to it and fixed it: with YOUR money....no warranty there!
As for me, I went backwards. I bought a D200 (threw my broken 35mm away) to kick off my new interest and have since bought older and used D70's to augment my stable for extra shooters. And yet...as far as gear goes: it is the glass that makes it good.
None of my cameras is good in low light, but they were better than me when I got them...I learned to adapt.
I also learned through purchase & try that the manufacturers lenses typically have some mojo in them that my other dead-sharp aftermarket lenses do not.
In business and this may follow too with lenses....
I've heard it said thusly:
Fast
Cheap
Well done
pick two of the three, because you can't have 'em all!
Fast and Cheap: won't be well done
Fast and well done: Won't be cheap.
Well Done and Cheap: Won't be fast.
cheers, tom
I've just upgraded from my well-used but loved Nikon D70s. And my trusty but slow speed 18-70 kit lens. Sure there are a lot of great Nikon (and other brand) lenses, but I'm pretty happy with the "make-do" approach I've taken over the past 5 years or so. Not to get too filled with pride but here are a few examples of me getting better with this most basic gear package . . .
links:
http://cspics.smugmug.com/photos/122156899_A6a8Q-M-2.jpg
http://cspics.smugmug.com/photos/90324555_MUY2L-L-2.jpg
http://cspics.smugmug.com/photos/212450066_iRKy2-L-3.jpg
http://cspics.smugmug.com/photos/59091783_jPrpa-L-1.jpg
One more thought. I used to be very, very devoted to fly fishing (like photography, a huge $$ drain). And I had to have the best, ridiculously expensive gear. Sage and Loomis rods. Abel and Hardy reels. Too much money spent. Especially when I realize that I was probably most successful with an inexpensive St. Croix brand combo that I kept with me all the time. I used it more and adapted to it's characteristics.
Anyway, preaching to the choir, I'm sure :crazy
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Dgrin newbie here.
I am one of those who went the P&S -> dSLR route. I used to shoot film SLR in my younger days but got lazy and made do with a Coolpix for a long time. This worked fine when my kids were young and less active in terms of extra curricular activities. Now they are into sports (cross country, track, TKD, judo, gymnastics, soccer) and I find that I need a dSLR to get the action pics. For outdoor/good lighting events the consumer lenses do just fine. The killer, however, is the indoor stuff, most recently gymnasics. My daughter just started competing and the lenses I had just weren't fast enough except for the 50 f/1.8. So I "invested" in some faster lenses (f/2.8) and even those are not quite fast enough. I have to up ISO by quite a bit to get usable exposure/SS (or go for even faster prime$). So I guess the point I want to make is that some consumer uses of dSLR will force you to buy the more expensive pro-level lenses because of the demanding shooting environment.
Corey
A lot of it is the law of supply and demand. The higher end something is (fast glass is a really good example) the less people buy of it and consequently the more expensive it is compared to its cheaper, more common brethren.
That being said, a lot of this stuff is relative. The closest comparison is probably to compare camera lenses to eyeglass lenses. If you wear eyeglasses, you'll know that they're pretty pricey these days -- spending $500-$1000 for a pair of glasses is not uncommon. And a typical pair of eyeglasses will have 1/5 of the optical glass and 1/10 of the materials that a high end camera lens will have.
If you compare the 17-55 F2.8 EF-S lens to its cheaper 18-55 little brother, you're dealing with 19 elements at a size of 77 mm compared to 12 elements at a size of 58 mm so there is more materials and more expensive material.
Finally, you should check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_wL0ZZi6k for some insight into the construction of lenses and why they're so darned expensive.
Well, no. It doesn't cost significantly more to produce a pair of $1000 glasses than it does to produce a $50 pair. The profit margin on a high-end lens is less than 10%. The profit margin on high-end eyeglasses is upwards of 70%, and can run into the 90s. That's one reason why there are about 18 eyeglass shops for every camera shop. So, it's not really a very useful comparison.
But, your point about the diminishing return on investment at the high end is absolutely on target. It's a lot easier to make $100 by selling 25 $300 lenses for $4 profit per lens than it is to sell one $3,000 lens for the same $100 profit just because the market for the cheap lenses is that much bigger.
On a completely different note, I also wanted to point out one fact that people consistently overlook when comparing total cost of ownership between film vs digital; film cameras don't need to be replaced every year or two, to stay near the cutting edge of image quality. Anyone still shooting with a 2MP camera? Of course not. But my 30 year old Minolta Maxxum 7000i will still take photos with exactly the same high quality as the newest camera with the same lens and film.
You used to only have to buy the best film to run with the big dogs. And, as the pros all used to say "film is cheap". New bodies, with the latest sensors and processors, are not cheap.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
It would certainly be nice if some of the higher end lenses were a bit less expensive - I think the extra numbers sold might compensate for the lower initial profit.
However, there are some bargains to be had. The Canon 50 1.8 (about £70 in the UK) is fantastic for the price - I wish that their other "cheapish" primes were as cheap as it! I'd happily take a prime of similar sharpness and quality between 24mm and 30mm for a similar price, or even a fraction more.
But the 28mm f2.8 is about £150, and the 30mm f2.0 £180 - although I've only used them briefly, neither seemed to me as good as the 50 f1.8, and at two to two-and-a-half times the price they're not that cheap really. A bit of a pain when you need a 50mm equivalent on a 1.6 crop camera.
I also have the 28-135, which I use as my day-to-day lens - I quite like it, though in my opinion the quality is nothing to rave about (perhaps my copy is only mediocre and there are some stunning copies out there)? The focal length on a 1.6 camera is pretty good for most purposes, though perhaps not quite wide enough at times when you're close to your subject.
At the other end of the scale, I've got a 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) - which I love!
I guess - you pays your money and you takes your choice. My 70-200 f2.8 is lovely and gets stunning results, but it's also relatively big and heavy - and not very subtle! I'd definitely recommend the 50 f1.8 though - at the price you can't go wrong. It's pretty sharp wide open, and becomes exceedingly sharp by f2.8-5.6 - which on ISO 100-200 is good enough for most day-to-day purposes. I actually use it as my main concert lens as well, because f1.8 + ISO 800-1600 can get some very nice shots if you're close to the front (or behind the barriers at Uni like I was)!
However - I think one of the things which makes people wonder whether the price of lenses is fair or inflated is the crazy prices which Canon (and other manufacturers, I imagine) charge for accessories.
As some examples:
* Canon 20/30/40/50D battery BP511 - £70
Third party battery from someone such as Sterlingtek - including shipping from the US to the UK - about £11-13 each.
* Canon remote switch RS80-N3 - £35
Just for a fancy connector, some wire and a switch!? Especially when the standard minijack version for older EOS cameras and the 300/350D is under £20...
I ended up biting the bullet and getting the £99 Timer Remote Control (TC80-N3) - yes, also overpriced, but far more capable in terms of the things it can do, so it seemed less "outrageous" a price to pay. But this doesn't have a very long cable - perhaps 1m long... so....
... the cable for extending either the RS80 or the TC80 by 10m is £60. That's just plain profiteering...
* Canon ACK-E2 mains adapter - £50 or more
For a mains adapter and dummy battery?! Especially considering that this used to be supplied with the D30 as standard...
* Canon wireless file transmitter WTF-E3 - £595
Ok, I understand this is a relatively low-volume product, so will command a certain price premium. But the basic wireless networking technology which it uses is mature and widely available in many, many products. You can get a wireless router for £50 which has far more features!
This is a typical example of something which is just way too expensive for most people to consider - yet if it were £300-400, it would still be marked up as a premium product, but many more people including myself would be tempted.
Because, in so many cases - from batteries and remote switches to off-camera flash cords - it seems that the original manufacturer is so ridiculously overpriced, it is hardly surprising that people wonder whether the lenses are unreasonably marked up as well.
Especially when one takes into account the price disparities between countries...
Just my £0.02 worth
Sunil
Perhaps a DSLR and pro-glass isn't the most appropriate tool for the task of capturing a kid in motion under challenging lighting conditions?
Even though I possess pro-level glass, I use a video cam (a cheap, used one at that) to capture my kids' indoor sports and arts performances. It works better, may suit the subject matter more effectively, and the "audiences" prefer it over stills.
If I was shooting on assignment for a publication, my opinion would be different; this is just home "scrapbook" stuff.
M
The original battery for 300D and 5D were over US 100 each but I got it from a electronic chain store with nice packaging and higher capacity for just US 25 each. It lasts me for an year for over 100 charge cycle and still working. I also bought one "compatible battery" before from a small store but it last only 6 months and less than 30 cycle.
Many times, not only the accessories from the original manufacturers are expensive, those "famous" brands are overprice too. Such as the simple plastic flash bouncer cost from US 50 to 200. Homemade, customize reflector cost only few dollars. I use simple semi-disposable white card have almost zero cost. (not because I play cheap, just forgotten to bring along many time and need a makeshift bouncer)
Battery grip for 300D cost about US200 but someone on the internet a China made version at US 30. I dare not to try!
Paying a bit more to buy the confidence and protect the costly main equipment seems necessary. But saving the cost on those non-critical component may be worth to consider.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Miguel,
This is a fair point. My wife is the video cam operator in the family so we have both video and photos. Indeed photographing such events is challenging given my equipment and skill level. However I derive a great deal of enjoyment from the photos of those special events, especially when they're captured just right and you have those special moments frozen in time. It's nice to create albums and slideshows which can be displayed on your desktop, digital picture frame, printed, and shared among family and friends. This of course also be done with video clips. Perhaps my desire to take photos has a lot to do with my familiarity with the medium (over video) and interest in the whole process of digital photography? In any event, this is good food for thought and will help me better balance my endeavors.
corey
Corey, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Indoor and night sports tend to be among the most demanding photography applications. Do count on using ISO 1600 and even ISO 3200 as needed, and that takes into account lenses capable of shooting at f2.8 and faster. There is a lot of good information about the techniques and equipment in the Sports forum.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Jtyoung, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Yes, both the "economies of scale" and the materials costs factor into retail and "street" prices.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums