Why have cameras and lenses become so expensive? | Hacker News Reader

Why have cameras and lenses become so expensive?

dpreview.com

I'm a prosumer hobbyist with a Nikon D850 and a handful of expensive lenses that I enjoy, but I'm not sure I would buy them again. I love the experience of shooting with them and loath the experience of getting my images off the device and onto a computer or phone. It creates a film-like experience where by the time I get around to processing images I've often forgotten what I've shot.

What I really want is an iPhone software experience paired with the physical ergonomics of a specialized device like a DSLR/mirrorless camera. Whoever can deliver that will get a lot of money from me. I want real connectivity built into the device made an integral part of the experience, not what you have today which is usually some half-baked thing where you have to attempt numerous times to pair over bluetooth with the unpolished companion iPhone app.

Preach it. Shooting on an interchangeable lens camera is still effectively like shooting a film camera.

They do have software to pair to your phone. I am most familiar with Fuji’s solution for that, which is, to put it charitably, execrable. It is painfully slow and glitchy. (I’ve heard better things about Nikon’s latest, but I haven’t used it.)

Thing is: I think that would require a partnership with Apple or Google, or perhaps Samsung. I think you’d need a lower-level API for very quick pairing and a smart handoff to a low-power mode that doesn’t suck your camera battery dry over the course of about 4 hours.

I recently bought a sony a7r IV, expecting the phone integration to be much better than my 5 year old Fuji X-T2, and both are unbelievably slow and painful to connect and download photos. It's such an outdated and bad experience, and the apps are glitchy and connections fail the first 2-3 times.

what I do is have an SD card reader for my phone and ipad. It's miles better (of course) than all the different connectivity apps that the camera brands offer.

The software, and integration with my other devices, feels twenty years in the past (I have a Sony) and the quality of still photography is better, but with phone cameras steadily closing the gap.

The quality of video is massively better, however. Just no comparison.

My ideal would be for Apple to buy Blackmagic. Probably wouldn't, but... can you imagine if they did?

I like the work they did together on the eGPUs.

It would be much more interesting to me than the Beats acquisition.

I've not had a standalone camera* in years, but contemplating the cheapest way to get back in so I can shoot some of the kids' sports.

All I want, like I think you're alluding to here, is a micro 4/3rds interchangeable lens camera that has good integration with my phone. Apple would absolutely kill it if they had one with their camera ISP (even with an older CPU*), and just instantly dumped the photos into your library on the phone.

* except for a few action/waterproof ones

* say the A12, it's being used in the new AppleTV, so why not.

What is so difficult with removing an SD card and popping it into your PC? If you’re a prosumer, you probably review and edit photos, which is better done on a bigger monitor anyway.

It would be easier if I had more ports on my computer, but the trend from Apple and other computing providers is to reduce, streamline, and eliminate opportunities physical connectivity. Even with a top-end Macbook Pro, you've only got 4 ports. One for power, two for external monitors, and you're down to 1 for everything else. So I have a big nest of dongles and adapters to accommodate my keyboard, mouse, microphone, webcam, printer, yubikey, and camera card readers. It looks like a major fire hazard.

It's not the end of the world, but it's enough friction that I tend to handle review/editing in batch rather than after every shoot. That's a luxury that I have as a hobbyist, since nobody is expecting me to send them my edits right away.

UX is all about small changes that have a big impact to how you use something. And the physical inconvenience of digging through my adapter/dongle nest is a deterrent, as is the clunkiness of Adobe Lightroom.

Oh ok, sorry I just posted a comment and you address my question here.

Yah. With modern laptop I consider a docking station mandatory.

Have you tried wifi SD cards?

https://thedroidguy.com/6-best-wifi-sd-cards-in-2019-1096952

Clunky at best

For a little while, Samsung was making an Android DSLR, which they called the Galaxy NX. It didn't make a big splash in the market, which I think is a shame.

I don't know how it holds up against newer DSLRs sensor-wise, but frankly I think those have long since surpassed my needs anyway. I might try to get my hands on one just to play with the software experience.

When shooting JPEG, I just use an Apple Lightning to USB Camera Adapter cable, and import straight to my phone (and iCloud Photo Library).

The cable is in my camera bag, and it takes less than a minute to do the import.

Thanks for that comments, that’s help me a bit in my understanding but bear with me, I haven’t use a camera in 5 or 6 years.

My favorite methods was to remove the SD card from the device and plug it into my computer thought a clunky adaptor. Usually I would do that once a month.

Is that not a option anymore?

It is, and it's still clunky.

I haven't tried one and don't know if it actually works in practice, but it sounds like you want the Zeiss ZX1[0]. It has Lightroom on the camera.

[0] https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/int/photography/zx1....

I shoot mostly around the house (kids), and the Sony FTP transfer feature is a godsend. Images get uploaded to my NAS over my wifi as I’m shooting, and subsequently filed away under dated folders and synced to Photostructure and NextCloud by a small shell script using inotifywait.

Neat! Are you using `photostructure sync $DIR` to import the new directories after they're copied over?

Yes, that’s right. I sync any directory which has files moved into it.

"FTP" - very convenient and all. Just one thing: to me looks like when Inet dropped FTP becouse unsecure and too complicated to configure LOL camera industry instanlty picked it up... So, are camera's manufacturers totally dumb or FTP was too good for plain internet users ? And FTPS or FTPTLS idea was too hard to use ? But monstrosity like HTTP+many-many-addons is OK ?

Well, it’s on my own private network so I’m not as concerned. I don’t expose my NAS to the public.

Won't it be enough to shoot a few hundred pictures with a negative and a digital camera, and run some ML with a precomputed heuristic, to make a digital filter?

Is the Nikon app an acceptable improvement to workflow? I understand it only moves a 2MP copy of the image to your phone or tablet which is a bizarre constraint but likely easily fixed in future updates if enough users demand it.

>I want real connectivity built into the device

Cellular networks don't seem fast/cheap enough to upload thirty 100MP images from anywhere you happen to be (or 4K video). 5G is not going to be there all the time when you are out in the woods. Pro photographers often carry a hard drive that you can plug an SD card into to backup your photos immediately in the field. When they get home they plug the drive into a computer and run ingest software (there are a variety of these available) and automatically all their photos are then in a known place ready to be reviewed, edited, etc. It's not wireless, and it takes a little discipline and takes some time to research and set up, but once you have a system it would seem to be fairly painless (haven't tried it yet myself) and would make your photos and video available quickly without having to think about it much.

I own a zeiss 55mm e-mount lens and it is absolutely incredible. Never fails to blow people’s minds with its sharpness and depth of field. No comparison with smartphone lenses and easily worth the money. I cherish many photos and moments with that lens. Also, a side note: one of the biggest advantages of a larger sensor like those used in full frame and medium format cameras is the ability to crop in post. Its really about treating photography as an artform - composition matters.

Supply and demand.

Everyone has a capable smart phone now. This removes the middle market for cameras, and only the pro/prosumer high end cameras which adds all sorts of bells and whistles.

Isn't that more "economy of scale" than "supply and demand"? The latter only really works as an explanation when there's a supply/demand shock (ie. surge in demand or crash in supply).

But... shouldn't there a "thriving" market of used lenses as people have moved to phone camera only ditching the old D/SLRs? Or were most of the dedicated cameras point-and-shoot with a kit zoom lens?

I don't think we've yet gotten to the point where everybody is unloading their old consumer-level DSLR equipment that they no longer use because their cell phone camera is almost as good. Give it another 5-10 years.

Article doesn't present any data on that -- it ignores used prices entirely, discussing only what the manufacturer is charging. So, it's certainly possible!

I read it as implying that there are far fewer entrants into the market because people are using phones where they would previously have used mid-grade specialized equipment. The demand for mid-market equipment is drying up, but the high-end demand for professional equipment isn't.

I see. I think that makes sense. As the EOS "Rebel" market is replaced by phone cameras, the pros still need their equipment which tend to be the higher end equipment which would drive up the median price.

I just looked at the Sony site and the 70/80-200, 200-400, prime 2.8s, etc., look to be in the normal range.

Note that much of the demand for professional equipment isn't coming from actual professionals, just from ambitious amateurs who want good stuff.

That’s an interesting point, so I went and checked briefly on what used Canon lenses are going for, at an online dealer that specializes in such things.

https://www.keh.com/shop/lenses/canon--canon-eos.html

And whoa. None of that is cheap.

So, my guess? It’s as you said: a lot of the market was APS-C cameras, like Canon Rebels or Nikon D3xxx. And those were overwhelmingly paired with the 18–55mm kit lenses, and then with either a 70–300, or perhaps an 18–250-ish superzoom. Most DSLRs were effectively welded to the lens that came in the box.

You have to factor in the additional people making YouTube content buying camera equipment.

Not sure precisely where you draw the prosumer line, but the article is also comparing the prices on the same models of pro camera over time and still seeing an upwards trend.

I'd suspect this means that smartphones eating the middle-tier of cameras has had a spillover effect to also hurt the pro/prosumer market. I'd speculate that although even a cheap DSLR is still better than a good smartphone camera, the phones are good enough that the upgrade (and hassle) doesn't appeal to most people. Thus the high end market shrinks despite not being competed with on its own terms.

I can confirm that with phone cameras (especially iPhone) where they are now, I feel no need to bring my 8 year old DSLR anywhere any more.

Honestly the weight doesn't appeal to me. I own a lovely DSLR, but I don't take it anywhere because I don't like lugging it around.

The smartphone serves most of my needs in a camera. Yeah the photos aren't as good, but they're good enough.

I wouldn't be shocked if the wide bottom of the demand pyramid was doing a lot of work to support the tiny, pointy top... Economies of scale on lens and body production. For example, with lenses, you can produce a thousand lenses with somewhat random quality, sell the best ones to the pro market, and then sell the not quite as good ones to the cheaper end of the market. When you take out there low end market, you then need to either produce more consistent high end lenses, or raise prices since the low end market isn't there to buy the lower quality outputs.

That's not what supply and demand is. Supply and demand would insinuate that there are less cameras available in the market, or more people are buying them.

Lower volume, higher unit price. Also cameras and lenses are (generally) much much better than they used to be. Perhaps people are willing to pay more for a better thing.

Yeah, hard to justify buying a low end camera when your phone has a better one built in

Your phone camera is not as good as a cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms.

Your phone camera is way better at the job to be done, which is to quickly share pics of your cock, cats, or kids, depending on what age bracket you are in. Traditional cameras, in which I include mirrorless, are still terrrrible when it comes to quickly bouncing a photo to Instagram, and arguably even worse when it comes to quickly making a video for TikTok.

Entry level DSLRs are roughly the same price as a low-end smartphone. For many, simply switching from a low-end smartphone to a high end phone will produce better results.

In particular the software assistance for capturing dynamic range and shooting in odd lighting conditions on an iPhone is pretty spectacular. Replicating the point and shoot experience requires a pretty substantial amount of skill on a traditional DSLR.

> cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms.

I think this depends on the shot. The Pixel 4 easily beats “cheap DSLR” in several settings, particularly low light. I know folks who have an iPhone as a phone and a Pixel as a camera :).

It’s true that it’s also much better at “photo production” (capture => minor edit => post), but I think you can find examples where the photo itself is strictly better.

In low light, I’ve never seen a smartphone that will beat a fast prime on a mirrorless or DSLR camera.

A kit zoom lens will struggle in low light, but you can get extremely high quality fast primes for a couple of hundred dollars these days that will blow away any smartphone.

You aren't going to get a decent, fast prime for a few hundred dollars, much less an excellent one.

Apple's low light performance in their new phones is excellent, and they are making huge strides in every area with every generation. A minimum acceptable DLSR with an acceptable fast prime will cost $1k, which is also the cost of Apple's excellent pro iphone that will rival the quality of the former for the average user.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is optically just fine if you stop down slightly, and the RF version is even better. It’s not much more than $100.

The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is absolutely fantastic, and smaller. As are all the Olympus fast primes. You can get it for $250.

More expensive fast primes are worth the price for me. But the entry-level ones are optically pretty great these days.

Versus night sight? The single shot with wide enough glass is definitely going to be better: there just aren’t many photons on the little sensor! But the stacking that night sight does “in camera”, particularly since the Pixel 4, seems to outpace “cheap DSLR”. Here’s a basic Nikon vs Pixel 2 a couple years ago [1].

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9rb53o/weekly_...

The cause and effect you imply here are backwards I think. The products are better to justify their higher price, not higher priced because they're better. The first sentence has it right - if you're faced with lower volumes, the best way to cope is by raising prices.

I don't think it's either of those things.

The products are better because of steady improvement in precision manufacturing. Sensors and lenses have both come a long way, the latter is mostly a benefit of cheaper precision steppers.

The prices are higher because phones have taken the whole entry tier of the market out, pretty much. There's not a lot of point in a good digital camera with one noninterchangeable zoom lens, when pictures from a phone camera are almost as high quality, and action cameras like the GoPro also chipped away at that product.

Cameras are a specialty product now, with APS-C and 3/4 as the entry level. People who want that kind of control and quality are willing to pay for it, and there aren't as many of us as there used to be.

You're correct that the cell phone has killed off the low end. People used to believe that they needed a proper camera to get their casual snapshots, but more and more they realize the camera built into their phone is perfectly adequate to the task. So fewer and fewer people are buying those "proper" cameras, leading to the reduced volumes. But reduced volumes lead to reduced revenue, and reduced revenue is poison to any company. So they compensate by raising prices. People generally respond poorly to raising prices for no reason, so they make the goods better to justify it. The methods used to make them better are irrelevant.

Also cameras and lenses are (generally) much much better than they used to be.

They really are. The cheap-o kit lenses they include nowadays use molded aspheric elements, and they are designed in such a way to take advantage of in-camera distortion and vignette correction. They are far better than the kit zooms you’d get back in the film days.

That depends on the kit lens of then and the kit lens of now. There was a lot of variability then, and the same holds true today.

I bought a body only Canon M50 as a glovebox camera, and read the reviews of their 15-45 EF-M kit lens and thought that it couldn't be that bad. I bought a new one on Ebay for $50. It is horrible in every single aspect. I've had numerous 35MM kit lenses over the years, and the Canon leads the pack for pure trash factor. It essentially turns the camera into a toy camera.

The higher end kits from different manufacturers are ok, but those are regular lenses vs designed to be in a kit at the lowest possible price.

Canon and Nikon are going to be in real trouble unless they increase the quality of their cheaper wares and make software that works.

My new cellphone literally has a Hasselblad camera on it. I get all the things that make better cameras better, but I already have stupidly high end living in my pocket. It's not like that company would put their brand on anything crap.

So, it's really basic economics. The middle of the market is getting eating by what used to be the bottom. So all that's left is the top

> My new cellphone literally has a Hasselblad camera on it

Sorry to bust your bubble, but no, your phone doesn't have a Hasselblad camera on it.

It has a lens that Hasselblad worked on, together with the vendor.

Which in itself tells more about brand dilution, and the market loss of cameras to phones, than the quality of your phone's camera.

And how long has it been since Hasselblad has been particularly relevant? They were sliced into pieces, and now they are owned by DJI.

https://www.slrlounge.com/dji-now-majority-shareholder-of-ha...

It might be even worse, if I recall correctly, Hasselblad might be only responsible for the color science.

> It's not like that company would put their brand on anything crap.

No, but that company no longer exists and the owners of the brand really have no problem selling the name for use on crap. You simply bought into that myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Fuji,_Shriro,_Imaco...

It's true that I bought into the myth, but it's also because I don't care; as not-a-photographer, this seems to do a great job of taking pictures of my baby & dogs, at a resolution at least as good as the screen I look at them on. Anything else is gravy.

Fair enough. I think the main takeaway is that photographic gear is now so dirt cheap that branding and really high end gear only matters to the pros, everybody else could just use their phone. That won't stop a whole bunch of them from buying stuff they don't need, but that's fine, it brings the price down for the professionals.

Sure, there’s a camera manufacturer involved in making cell phone cameras. What you’re missing is only the small matter of inherent physical advantages of larger sensors and lenses.

One point of interest is that Nikon and Canon, the giants of DSLRs, were very resistant to do mirrorless, even as Sony, Fuji and Olympus went down that way. They are now going into mirrorless big time.

Part of it I guess is that the technology got better, but also oh what an excuse to sell everyone their lenses again! You can use adapters on older lenses, but usually with some (minor) loss of optical quality, and more clunkiness - bit like with dongles I guess! Old DSLR lines are also being phased out, making sure all the pros move sooner or later.

What the article doesn’t mention in full is that there are now new independent makers of lenses. These are often (not always) inferior optically, often don’t have autofocus etc but are much more affordable than branded equivalents.

Interestingly, even there you find they evolve out of cheap and cheerful to quality for a price! Samyang comes to mind first and foremost.

Some niche markets are irrationally expensive e.g. bicycles.

I was shocked when I started shopping for an electric bike, to see that in my city, there are multiple bike shops selling e-bikes from 5K to 15K a piece. I'm surprised that these businesses can all survive, because the median income before taxes here is about ~62K. I mean who's actually buying this? But I guess if you're selling 15K bikes, you only need to sell about two a month to pay the bills.

I used to hear it described as the rich white people sport.

15K is decent motorcycle, very low end car territory already. That's exorbitant.

Heck no, you can get very reliable used cars for $5k. 15k gets you into a reasonably well used BMW (not that thats a sweet spot of value or anything.)

They are all over Marin County, CA.

And I'm jealous. I wish I had a high end electric bike, but my patched together Zapp bike is kinda ok for now.

If I was younger, with money, and connections; I would be all over manufacturing electric bikes.

These high end bikes are basically motorcycles. They look fun, and practical.

Right now they are not regulated, and I hope it stays that way. They have given out of shape, or disabled, people a way to get out in nature.

I do see a lot on Craigslist though. I have a feeling, my wealthy neighbors buy them, but were never bicyclists to begin with.

The minute I see one at my price point ($500 used), I'm buying one.

Oh yea, cops in my county have become revenue collectors. They harass anyone out after 10 pm. They pull over people at random for no reason. I think they assume everyone drinks like they do? They seem to be leaving electric bicycles alone--for now?

My dad bought his first Zapp bike because he was tired of being pulled over in the Richmond District in San Francisco, by cops looking for an marginal DUI. The Zapp bike made his life less stressful.

The price point of the nicer bikes needs to come down though. Even if I had 5-15 grand that I could blow, theft is still a concern.

Yeah I used to have a decent ebike I bought for 2K, and even at that price point, I didn't bring it anywhere that I couldn't keep a constant eye on or bring inside. With a 15K ebike, you need insurance.

Cheapest ones (new) around me are 2k. For the people buying it, yeah, it's a lot of upper class people, but also a lot of people using an ebike to replace a second car, which works out way cheaper in insurance/fuel/maintenance/etc.

They are expensive for rational reasons. What is irrational is thinking that an expensive bike makes you fast. My old self on a $11k bike has no chance of keeping up with my current self on a low-cost bike. If I were to occasionally race (too dangerous), an expensive bike wouldn't compensate for my lack of tactics and strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com