|
Forums >
General Industry >
digital camera price fixing. when?
Kevin Connery wrote: It would make more sense if perhaps Canon had its super deluxe weather sealed high iso camera priced at X-thousand dollars and then Nikon or Sony come out with a similar model that undercuts Canon's by 70% Dec 11 12 04:19 pm Link David Miller Photoworks wrote: Actually, the D700 was $3000. I'm not sure why I remember $3500. I bought one. I have the receipt. It was $2999. So we split the difference there. Rakesh Malik wrote: What I meant was if Sony wanted to, they could put that tech into a DSLR body and price it at $4000 and be back in the game. You are talking about a completely different market of product. The difference between a T4i and a RED system. Like the difference between a T4i and a Leaf Credo 80. Dec 11 12 04:38 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: R A V E N D R I V E wrote: You're entitled to your beliefs. Dec 11 12 05:21 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: Kevin Connery wrote: You're entitled to your beliefs. I think the market forces argument is simply an alibi for price fixing and I haven't had one single rebuttal to the several arguments that I now present as evidence Dec 11 12 05:24 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: You haven't presented any evidence. You've presented a flawed understanding of price fixing and capitalism in general, with a healthy dose of conspiracy. Dec 12 12 06:05 am Link David Parsons wrote: lets talk about why the regulators in three jurisdictions won't be able to strongarm several billion dollars out of the japanese camera companies Dec 12 12 06:21 am Link Kevin Connery wrote: Let him go on as usual....the shits & giggles quotient is strong on this one. Dec 12 12 06:27 am Link Small Fruit Pits wrote: escort threads and modeling scams get boring Dec 12 12 06:06 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: And troll threads have repercussions. Dec 12 12 09:44 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: the irony being that me entertaining this trainwreck attempt would be the only justification for locking the thread, peculiar enforcement action if I say so myself. Dec 12 12 09:56 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: Tier 1 Toyota Yaris - Chevy Cruze - Ford Focus Dec 12 12 10:14 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: And you did. (It's not irony, either, but, hey, why quibble over words.) Admittedly, I can't tell if you're trolling, or merely sufficiently devoted to your preconceived ideas that you aren't interested in any facts disproving them. Dec 12 12 10:42 pm Link Good Egg Productions wrote: Actually, Sony IS back in the game - their mirrorless cameras are doing quite well, enough to convince Sony to put R&D into a whole new lineup of lenses for it. Dec 13 12 10:28 am Link How much cheaper do you need them to be? They seem pretty damn cheap already. Unless you want more expensive features. Dec 13 12 10:42 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: either or, something competitive besides in-camera HDR would be nice Dec 13 12 10:09 pm Link Rakesh Malik wrote: yep, thanks for chiming in Dec 13 12 10:09 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: If the market will bear the price of their product and they're selling models at prices similar to those of Canon, why should Nikon or Sony (or any other manufacturer) sell their product for 70% less than Canon do? Dec 14 12 02:32 am Link ASMP is helping to price fix for photographers. How many threads have there been about a photographer lowering the value of photography and they should be stopped. And price fixing can still be active even when prices drop. "You will only drop your price x$ and so will we." Or no price fixing. Maker A drops their price, so I had better match it if I want to be able to keep selling. Or maker A raises their price for equiv. product as maker B, so they have now established that the similar products are worth more (because people will pay for it). So maker B changes model # and raises price. Or. Or. Or. Dec 14 12 01:42 pm Link sounds like competition to me. Dec 14 12 01:52 pm Link Am i the only one aware of the fact that there are more compainies than Sony, Nikon, and Canon? I suppose they all work together to price fix to help each other survive or thrive. Sarcasm... ^^^ Dec 14 12 09:07 pm Link The cameras all have similar parts- sensor, CPU, lCD screen, lens mount, internal memory, prisim, interface ports, battery, etc. not a huge surprise that they have similar costs for similar component specs. Pricing is similar to the car industry, a Cadilac CTS costs more than a Hyundai Accent because they use different components, even though both have many similar features - four wheels, four doors, gas engine, windshield, seatbelts, trunk, etc. Dec 16 12 06:26 pm Link "well for one, the alleged cartel is using a collusion of profit margins to avoid introducing better technology" Look at what they are dealing with. Convergence and model/feature alignment are real life and death decisions to companies. Not just wishful thinking. It can't get more competitive than that. Just look at Minolta, Pentax, Fuji, Kodak and the whole European camera industry. A camera that used to cost, lets say $500 FOB in Japan from the factory in 2006 now cost about $1200 based solely on the devaluation of the dollar (235>180 yen per dollar vs the current 70 yen per dollar). And still the performance of the cameras has increased exponentially. That is why so much Japanese production is moving to China and Cambodia and Vietnam. You can dream all you want about abusive pricing, but photographers are getting the deal of a lifetime on modern equipment. "you know, such as removing the SLR from DSLRs, as they are now. or modular systems like REDs or refining the light field technology that lytro is peddling" Since the dSLR is by its very nature "modular', I do not understand your inference. And when you look at the features and functionality, I think your looking from a very limited viewpoint. The RED is a very limited production, high priced video camera capable of making files big enough to be used for some still applications. It has gained a reasonable but not industry changing following. It came out at $60,000 for a useable system with lenses. Now, with the decreasing cost curve it cost about $30,000 for a system. Most photo/video shooters are pretty happy with a $10K Canon/Nikon system, particularly with FF bodies coming out for much less each year. The Lytro technology is especially intriguing, but large (or high res moving) images will be very difficult to achieve because of the way pixels are allocated to the various focal planes on the sensor. I suggest to you the competition is fierce among Japanese camera companies, not collusive. Over the last 10 years pixel counts have gone up 5 -7 times; dynamic range has increased 3-5 stops (800-3200%); shutter speeds have expanded by a similar amount; metering systems including flash control has evolved dramatically; communication between camera bodies and lenses and flashes has been integrated; size and weight have been reduced; two SLR formats+ medium format systems have been developed and new super small modular systems are hitting the market in a big way. Performance for price has increased exponentially. It takes at least 2-5 years to identify a new technology's possibilities, acquire the engineering expertise, spend on the needed capital fab equipment and integrate the features into a system. "or in 2012 just beginning to introduce modern connectivity options for sharing photos in response to a market that is finding a way to move without the cartel. " Connectivity has been one of an evolving chain of competing developments and technology standards. NObody bets millions of dollars on exciting technologies until they can identify the survivability of and value over the long term. Then they have to evaluate alternative providers and systems. This does not happen overnight. You are now seeing wider use of blue tooth (and it has been on some models for 3 years). "These are all EXAMPLES that I am not saying they should pursue, but "single lens reflex" definitely is outmoded technology in digital just like CF cards was outmoded technology back in 2008 since SD cards were already just as fast and faster then with equivalent capacity," You left out that they are more fragile, and easier to loose. And that some SLR makers DID adopt them or a dual card format. And, in 2006, the capacity and speed were vastly different between the two systems. And, are you suggesting that regulators should have the decision as to what features and technologies should be the ones that get adopted? PLEASE. Say it aint so Joe! " just like there was no functional reason that DSLRs didn't have video processing ability back in 2006 although being a favorable form factor for many situations, as the data bandwidth required to do "unlimited 12mp jpeg burst" is much more than a 24 fps HD video requires, which is basically 2 megapixel images." It took the development of better CMOS and interlined CCD sensors to make video realistic in HD format. In 2006, TVs and video were nowhere near 1080. It was a target technology in development. Just the cost of the sensors, the attached data processors and related design requirements to move the data off the sensor and the duplication of software to handle two different functional applications and codexes (JPG and the chosen video format, oh, plus RAW). And the ability to provide the data intensive enlarge ability of still images vs video. Oh, and the storage card capacity. "I think the regulators can really shake things up. the EU commissions recent $1.92 billion fine on LCD makers is a good example of things regulators don't like. A lot of it is relevant to what I observe in the prosumer camera market." Price fixing is wrong and I agree that if they can prove a case, they should pursue it. But, if you think "regulators' will aid your cause, please rethink your premises. The fact that you want something instantly shows that you don't get what it takes to implement the design and manufacturing revolution that has driven analog companies into digital. Good luck. The development timelines for the varying vast array of technologies in each camera; from sensors to storage, to data processors, to miniaturization, to software, to adopting standards, to simply acquiring digital technology understandable to customers changing to digital in what was an analog world until 2000-2004 for mid level professional was a major revolution and capital investment for every one of the companies involved. Perhaps you could just say "thank you" that instead of $1.00 per shot, you can now take better images for >$0.0001 per shot and get great video too. And all of that technology still won't make people photographers really. Just sayin' John Dec 18 12 08:33 pm Link IMAGINE IT IMAGING wrote: It's just not normal for these fora, especially not on a first post to have something so sensible! Dec 19 12 01:08 am Link Thank you for your kind words. After 40 years of dealing with irrational assumptions, both in manufacturing and image making, I should be immune. But, sometimes you just gotta let it hang out. I'll try to be more brief and say sensible. John Dec 19 12 11:11 am Link |
