Why are digital SLRs so expensive (1 Viewer)

I've been using a Canon 30 for years. Its a real trustworthy tool for portraits and general shots and now birds. Why then is the new 30D 3 times the price. What's so expensive inside?

oldgiteggy said:

I've been using a Canon 30 for years. Its a real trustworthy tool for portraits and general shots and now birds. Why then is the new 30D 3 times the price. What's so expensive inside?

Click to expand...

I bought a Canon EOS 600 (which is still functional) when it first came out, I have forgotten exactly how much I paid for it, but taking into account inflation, it probably cost as much as the 30D.

Whats expensive is- The sensor ( still there is a high loss rate in manufacture with dead pixels etc) and other electonic hardware, the software development costs, the necessity for extremely clean conditions during manufacture.
However the high initial cost is countered by the fact that you do not have the cost of film, for example 10,000 slides would cost (when using process paid film at £8 a roll of 36) about £2,200, a DSLR sensor/shutter should last 10times this many frames, so saving £22,000 on film over its lifetime, so I think they are cheaper in the long term.

I've no experience of film SLRs, but just this morning I was reading an old "Birdwatching" magazine from Sep 2001.

There's an advert in there for Warehouse Express, and back then the only SLRs on offer were film jobbies.

I was struck by how expensive they were!

The Nikon F5 was £1500, and the Canon EOS 1V was £1400.

Even at the "cheap" end, the Nikon F90X was £600, and the Canon EOS 3 was £800.

nigelblake said:

However the high initial cost is countered by the fact that you do not have the cost of film, for example 10,000 slides would cost (when using process paid film at £8 a roll of 36) about £2,200, a DSLR sensor/shutter should last 10times this many frames, so saving £22,000 on film over its lifetime, so I think they are cheaper in the long term.

Click to expand...

Trouble is, how many people will stay with the same camera body? For eg, what was the price of the Nikon D1 when it came out - then the cost of the D1X for those that wanted to upgrade from the 2.75? Mp to 6? Mp, then thise that had to upgrade further to the D2X - if you went this route - then taking into consideration second hand retail/part-ex rates, how much is the D2X going to cost after buying and selling the other two?

..just a thought

Keith Reeder said:

Even at the "cheap" end, the Nikon F90X was £600, and the Canon EOS 3 was £800.

Click to expand...

Cheap end was the EOS 650 I used to use. The mirror slap on that scared elephants on safari so much, I had to wrap in up in a t-shirt to deaden the noise.

nigelblake said:

Whats expensive is- The sensor ( still there is a high loss rate in manufacture with dead pixels etc) and other electonic hardware, the software development costs, the necessity for extremely clean conditions during manufacture.
However the high initial cost is countered by the fact that you do not have the cost of film, for example 10,000 slides would cost (when using process paid film at £8 a roll of 36) about £2,200, a DSLR sensor/shutter should last 10times this many frames, so saving £22,000 on film over its lifetime, so I think they are cheaper in the long term.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies. Sensor costs seem to be a major factor. I suppose that the running costs, films, processing, etc, saved by doing all post processing yourself does add up to alot over many years. It pays for itself. As an interested amateur, I'm stuck with what I can afford; entry level DSLR.

For a cheapo Digi SLR try the Canon 300D.A great little camera,takes excellent shots,can be picked up used for a couple of hundred pounds,but,the big factor is which lens to purchase.For a budget ,and if you want to take the odd landscape shot along with some wildlfe then I guess a 300 telezoom would be the choice.These lenses can be obtained for around £250,used, so for £500 you can have a Digi slr,and no film proccesssing.

The sensor and associated filters, LCD displays, firmware which allows operation of the camera and all the associated electronics to control image quality and storage of data come to mind when considering extra costs.

A film camera is only hardware that makes sure the film is correctly placed and transported. Yes, they contain a light meter, AF sensors and other controls, but their main job is to align the film behind the lens. Digitals are completely different. There's no film so you need electronics to make sense of what the sensor captured (not to mention making sense of all those 1 and zeros...lol). Think of some of the other features digitals need that film cameras don't. Things like setting color temp (white balance), storing data in RAM instead of on film, increasing sensor sensitivity (using a different ASA in the film world), noise reduction, anti-aliasing, image settings (sat, hue, contrast, sharpness, etc), multiple output formats (jpg, TIF, RAW), selectable color space options (Adobe RGB, sRGB) and the list goes on.

That you can pick up a D50/70 or 350D at their current prices is pretty amazing considering that a 2mpxl Dslr cost close to $10,000usd only 6 short years ago.

It is no shame to be "stuck" with an entry level Dslr. Matter of fact, in your case it may be a boon. Using an entry level camera should provide you with a solid knowledge base and an understanding of how to get the most out of a Dslr. It will also bring to your attention things it cannot do well. So next time you are in the market, or looking to upgrade, you will be quite sure what features/performance your next camera should have. The 350D is a scaled down 20D. Personally, it doesn't fit my hand as well, but IMO the image quality is virtually identical

Remember the old axiom; bodys come and go, but good glass lasts forever (or was it, diamonds are forever?...lol). Seriously, invest in good glass and you will most likely be thrilled with the results these entry level Dslrs can produce

Good luck,
Steve

nigelblake said:

However the high initial cost is countered by the fact that you do not have the cost of film, for example 10,000 slides would cost (when using process paid film at £8 a roll of 36) about £2,200, a DSLR sensor/shutter should last 10times this many frames, so saving £22,000 on film over its lifetime, so I think they are cheaper in the long term.

Click to expand...

I was just looking at this - so far this year I have kept ~2000 photos taken with my 350D, using Nigel's equation that works out at about £445 in film costs... which is about the same cost as a 350D! That's just this year, I got my 350D last summer, also it doesn't take into account all of the shots that I've deleted. So I'd say that dslr's are actually very good value, I certainly wouldn't be able to afford to take as many shots if I was still using film.

I`d agree whole-heartedly, I am at frame 15,500 with my just about 3 year old Pentax - even the higher price I paid has long been covered by the savings - not to mention the fact that with Pentax all my old lenses got a new life - the 300mm f4 Sigma APO effectively handles like a 2,8 420mm compared to the days of Sensia as Pentax starts at ISO 200 - simply magic

Thanks folks.

Mind you, even on eBay, the prices for second-hand DSLRs are pretty steep.
I'd sell my left kidney to get one, but I think it's pretty tired at the moment.
Not that I suffer from camera envy or anything (see the post on 'Megxon C580')...

I had a Canon AE1 (bought in 1979) which cost £200. I then got a Canon A1 the following year (still in mint condition) which cost £240. A Nikon D70 now cost less than £500. Expensive? I don't think so.