The DSLR Market In A Year?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003.

  1. What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A ten
    megapixel for under 1K?
     
    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    R2D2 Guest

    No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years. We may see more
    models to choose from, like the Nikon D70 and the upcoming Minolta Maxxum
    Dslr.
     
    R2D2, Dec 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Don Coon Guest

    models.

    $40-$50??? The sensor alone probably costs more than that. I think you're
    way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?
     
    Don Coon, Dec 13, 2003
    #3
  4. models.

    And more competition in the digital camera arena. My feeling is that the
    digital camera consumer is a lot better informed than the typical film
    camera buyer who went to a local camera store and was persuaded by a
    salesperson trying to get the largest commission. The digital camera buyer
    has access to reviews and so forth. Name brands such as Nikon will not have
    the weight in the digital market as they do in film since people will be
    wanting overall performance.

    I am waiting for the Nikon D70 since I have some Nikon lenses. But I am more
    than open to getting something else if the D70 turns out to be the minimum
    camera it can be to target its market. I won't buy it for the NIKON
    lettering.

    Right now I am using a Sony P72 and am very impressed with it. If Sony makes
    a DSLR I would give it serious consideration.
     
    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003
    #4
  5. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Richard S Guest

    Can you point me to any information on "upcoming Minolta Maxxum Dlsr"

    Thanks.
     
    Richard S, Dec 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    R2D2 Guest

    [SNIPPED NIKON PROPAGANDA]

    Paolo, Dubya's daughter owns a D100 system. That means you have to put
    Nikon on your boycott list. ;-)
     
    R2D2, Dec 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    RB Guest

    In the absence of a cartel I would thought prices to some extent *reflected*
    both. There will of course be other factors such as the cost of entering the
    market and perceived longer-term profitability. If margins are irresistably
    high that will attract investment and competition which will lead to reduced
    margins. I'm not sure why they should be so very different from any consumer
    item but please explain why if they are.
     
    RB, Dec 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Mark B. Guest

    I'm sure the sensor cost is much more than that.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Dec 14, 2003
    #8
  9. (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    That was my experience with our chip manufacturing plus we had a much
    better yeild on regular featured dies that just endlessly repeated the
    same pattern like sensors (or memory). The other thing is that sensors
    have huge feature sizes compared to the state of the art stuff today so
    the margin of error is greater and the fab can be older and mostly
    written off stuff, ergo cheaper chips. By the way some older fabs have
    really great yeilds.
     
    Mike Latondresse, Dec 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    stacey Guest

    ???

    Why would you say that? This same MP dSLR camera would have been $5000 a few
    years ago.
     
    stacey, Dec 14, 2003
    #10
  11. You bet! I've got US$3,000 sitting in a savings account waiting for a
    full-frame over 9MP camera.

    And Canon can read my mind. (I hope.) More power to them if they succeed.
    Even if the camera only costs them US$30 to produce, it's fine by me.
    They'll deseverve every penny of that US$2,700 difference if they get such a
    camera to market next year.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    DJ Guest

    I'd say Bill's educated guess was a pretty good one. Being an engineer and by
    nature probably conservative, when questioned he produced some plausible
    estimates to support his initial off the cuff guestimate. Being also an
    electronics engineer, albeit not a chip designer, I'd say he's probably close to
    the mark. In fact, given the telephone numbers these things are made in I'd
    suggest he may have over-stated the raw manufacturing cost of the electronics.
    DVD players are *retailing* here in Australia for about USD50 at the moment.
    Except for the sensor they must contain a comparable amount of silicon to a
    300D.

    DJ
     
    DJ, Dec 14, 2003
    #12
  13. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Nik Simpson Guest

    The reason will be increased competition, with more companies offering
    products with these capabilities there will be an inevitable downward
    pressure on price, particularly if there are good margins on the products
    and an elastic market (i.e. half the price == double the sales.) I suspect
    that 2004 will see both conditions and will inevitably result in reduced
    prices for 6MP or better dSLRs.

    BTW, anybody know if Olympus has an plans for a dSLR that will take standard
    Olympus lenses, or should I just consign my OM bodies & lenses to the
    dustbin of history ;-)
     
    Nik Simpson, Dec 14, 2003
    #13
  14. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Don Coon Guest

    Take a look at Canon's earnings in Value Line. Hardly reporting an absurd
    profit. Certainly not enough to get me to buy their stock. Their pre-tax
    profit was 11.2% last year; their tax rate took 42.2% of that.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Do you not remember the drop in price from the D60 to the 10D?

    A better cam for $800-900 less.

    You don't think Canon did that to lose money, do ya?
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 14, 2003
    #15
  16. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Don Coon Guest

    Snip
    Snip #2
    I think they're also after the lens market. The cost of lenses can easily
    exceed the cost of the body. And once you've got people owning your line of
    lenses, it's hard for them to shift loyalties. In that way the body is
    somewhat analagous to the razor blade handle : )

    I've now got about $2000 in Canon lenses -- not counting teleconverters and
    other accessories -- and "only" $1500 in the body. So which way might I
    lean in the future, all other things being somewhat equal? IMHO, Nikon has
    missed an important boat.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 14, 2003
    #16
  17. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Don Coon Guest

    Have you looked at their lens sales? Have you noticed "out-of-stock" signs
    are much more frequent than a year ago? Have you noticed that people are
    bidding used Canon lenses up higher than the price B&H sells them new?
    Are you sure Canon hasn't set the DRebel up as a loss leader just to make
    their money on lenses and lock buyers into the Canon loyalty family?

    Now, I don't think Canon is selling the DRebel at a loss but I bet they were
    willing to pare the margin as thin as neccessary to promote longer term
    profits. Just a theory running through my head as I watch the incredible
    Canon lens feeding frenzie. If you haven't noticed it, you a) have all the
    Canon lenses you need or 2) don't own Canon DSLR equipment.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 14, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.