At what cost??????

[PhotogRAFer]

When I first took up photography, I knew that it was one of the more expensive pastimes to have, and went into it with open eyes.
As the years have gone on, so has the cost, but this has been absorbed because of my passion for it.

But there comes a time when I have to stop and think, and really do have to ask myself 'Are they taking the p!&&'?

My latest example is the Westcott Ice Light. It looks like a great bit of kit, particularly for light painting on vehicles etc, something which I enjoy, so looked at this as a replacement for my large torch.

HOW MUCH???????

Here in the UK I was looking at around £300 ($460 US) for the basic light, with a further £250 ($380 US) for the accessories kit.

So the question is.........How on gods green earth can Westcott justify that figure? There is very little tech in the light, and the accessories are plain, nothing special.

Are we really being taken for idiots now? Remember this was an 'option' to replace my 2 million candle power LED, Lithium powered lamp, which only cost me £60!

Whilst I will pay for certain items of a certain quality, but come on, lets play the game manufacturers.

What are your thoughts guys? Are we being ripped off?


John

[Inkanyezi]

Photography is not expensive at all these days, when we can re-use media over and over. Very little is needed actually. A creative photographer can use very cheap equipment, and the main cost from yesterday, film, chemicals, paper is a thing of the past. We can take many thousand images at negligible cost and display them with our electronic means. It becomes more expensive when making prints, but basically, what's needed is a camera with battery and memory, and a computer.

Of course you can make it expensive, by buying expensive gear, but you can make do with much cheaper stuff. The example is one of the more expensive gadgets, which could be of little use, or for a few of us a great tool. It all depends on how you would like to work and what you do. I think it is over-priced, as in most cases you could use something far cheaper and acquire satisfying results. It's actually the same with a few flash systems, but you can get basic equipment much cheaper.

So, if people pay for what you or I regard as over-priced, so be it. There might very well be some justification. Sometimes it is just that you know you get a useful tool, no matter the price, without much hassle. I couldn't justify the price, but if someone else would think three hundred quid is a bargain, why not? As I have been a lighting technician for some years, I would rather build something more powerful with that investment, using fluorescents rather than LED, but if you want something ready-made I think it can be a justifiable item.

But basically, all that is needed for this sport nowadays is a cheap camera with battery and memory card and a computer. Add a simple tripod and a lot of creativity, and you're on the track.

[loosecanon]

Some accessories are expensive, after all thats where the real profit is for shops. However there can be cheap alternatives.
Like I paid £30 for Lion powered 10w (= 600 lumens) work light. Runs for over 2 hours, and if you take the base of it the unit has a 1/4 inch female thread to fir a light stand.
DIY stores stock plastic sheet to make a light table, etc etc, so browse the DIY store and see what is available.

[IzzieK]

It may not be expensive if you are earning a lot of money just for your passion and/or from your photography, whichever way. But very expensive just for a smally fry like me.

Necessity is the mother of invention so we were told, so if we are without that Westcott contraption, we can use something else and good pp can result at the same end.

[PhotogRAFer]

I do use cheaper alternatives where I can, as long as the quality is good. For instance, my 3 flashes are Yongnuo 560 III's which are excellent, and so much cheaper than the Nikon branded units.

But the question still remains as to how manufacturers can justify such a high price tag.

[Manfred M]

But the question still remains as to how manufacturers can justify such a high price tag.

The answer is simple - they feel that they have set a "fair" price point and that they will be able to move their product at that price point to their intended client base.

As you feel this is too expensive, you are obviously not in their target market group.

[Venser]

It's definitely worked out well in advance.

In it's simplest terms, I'm sure they have a formula like:
Profit = Price_Per_Unit * Units_Sold - Cost_Of_Moving_Units

They worked out the Price_Per_Unit and Units_Sold to be priced accordingly. Since all three are linked, there's going to be a point where profit is maximized. Chances are that's the price you're currently seeing on display.

[Krawuntzel]

The answer is simple - they feel that they have set a "fair" price point and that they will be able to move their product at that price point to their intended client base.

As you feel this is too expensive, you are obviously not in their target market group.

It is really as simple as that: producers do not ponder over fairness (or any other social value); they either sell their stuff or fail. A simple logic of market forces (we are told in never-ending iterations since the famous invisible hand metaphor by Adam Smith). And as educated and well informed consumers we can choose not the buy the product. Freedom (of choice) has the disadvantage that we have to choose.
Erwin

[xpatUSA]

It is really as simple as that: producers do not ponder over fairness (or any other social value); they either sell their stuff or fail. A simple logic of market forces (we are told in never-ending iterations since the famous invisible hand metaphor by Adam Smith).

That's my view of it too. Although manufacturers have always been in it for the money, the glare of publicity and that of the internet is showing up the greed aspect more and more these days. The which indeed makes us "educated and well informed consumers" but sometimes well mis-informed, unfortunately.

And, as educated and well informed consumers, we can choose not to buy [or even use] the product. Freedom (of choice) has the disadvantage that we have to choose.
Erwin

As do I, Erwin, although occasionally the lack of Flash Player on my machine is a trifle inconvenient

[Brev00]

Photography, as a hobby, can be as inexpensive or expensive as your own needs and desires dictate. The hobby seems incredibly cheap to me. After spending what I did for my camera, lenses, and software, I go out into the field and spend a day shooting at no expense to me at all. Many can buy a nice television and be done with it. Others need to have a surround sound system, an oppo receiver, and a room rebuilt to suit one's ideal scenario. Your path is apparently expensive and the expense is becoming a burden. That is not a characteristic of photography but of your own particular inclinations. Why blame the hobby?

[Donald]

Your path is apparently expensive and the expense is becoming a burden. That is not a characteristic of photography but of your own particular inclinations. Why blame the hobby?

I think that is a rather harsh way of aiming criticism at a fellow member for an original post that was asking an appropriate and perfectly civil question. John never indicated his intention to buy a product he considered to be very expensive for the job it is intended to do.

[davidedric]

I honestly don't feel ripped off.

Something is offered at a price, and I buy it or I don't (or maybe make an offer ) It just depends whether it is worth it to me. What it cost to create really doesn't concern me.

Well, mostly

Dave

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I am inclined to think that the price for photography equipment isn't based on production and distribution costs but how much the market will stand. And photographers are used to equating high price with high quality, so will pay a premium. Of course, that relationship doesn't necessarily hold. I was investigating wireless tethering recently and found that the market leader (in a small market, granted) is the CamRanger, at £250 a pop. I then found out that the equipment is basically a £25 wireless router with custom software. So, that is £225 for R&D for custom software, but of course it isn't. It is £50 for R&D and £175 for it being a bit of photographic kit.

On some things, you get what you pay for. On others, I am all for DIY and ghetto approaches. It saves me money and allows me to cock a snook at all of those companies over-pricing their products.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

And, to illustrate that, the Ice Light looks like a high-powered LED torch. You can get an LED torch with 1,160lm output for £80-100. So, get one of those, put some gels on the front, if you are so inclined, and Bob's you uncle. Does it do anymore than this one, at £80?

http://www.torchdirect.co.uk/1500-lu...led-torch.html

ETA: OK. Just looked at other pictures of it and it has a light saber diffuser attachment. OK. I am sure I could make something workable out of a cardboard tube, some foil and white fabric. Might not look as swish, but it would do the job. They also do cheaper, ready-made alternatives on Amazon. Look for Magic Tube.

[jcuknz]

My attitude .. Photographically speaking
' Snoot' doing the job of two lights, spot key and background through trapdoor. Also home made boom on homemade tripod stand balanced by lump of steel with string to hang it on boom



Flash must be 30 years old now with YounNuo's added in recent years

[Brev00]

I think that is a rather harsh way of aiming criticism at a fellow member for an original post that was asking an appropriate and perfectly civil question. John never indicated his intention to buy a product he considered to be very expensive for the job it is intended to do.

I don't think what I said was harsh. The op complained about the cost of an accessory using terms such as "Are we really being taken for idiots now?" That seemed harsh to me--towards the manufacturer. You may find the point of view expressed in the post appropriate and civil, but I found it to be, dare I say something negative, a complaint. So, I asked him to take more responsibility. And, I don't understand your last sentence. He clearly had an intention to buy it or he would not have sought out the price. After that, he did not want to buy it apparently because he found the price a rip off. I would like B & W speakers to be $1500 for two and not $1500 each. High fidelity is a very expensive hobby. But, I can continue to listen to what I have without claiming B & W is ripping me off. Just a choice. Budget v. ambition. Budget usually wins in my case. Not complaining. If you deem this inappropriate, just delete it.

[William W]

. . . But the question still remains as to how manufacturers can justify such a high price tag. . .

They have justified the price quite clearly in their descriptive of the product. The salient point is that you do not accept that justification of price, simply because you do not hold a similar description of the product. And that’s entirely your prerogative so to do.

Their description of the product is here.

And also here.

However your description of the product is founded in these terms:
“ . . . a replacement for my large torch . . . particularly for light painting on vehicles etc, something which I enjoy . . . an 'option' to replace my 2 million candle power LED, Lithium powered lamp, which only cost me £60!. . . [there is] very little tech in the light, and the accessories are plain, nothing special”

The two descriptions of the Product are worlds apart, so there’s no way even if hell freezes over that the those who choose the second descriptive will accept any justification of price predicated on the first descriptive.

Similarly -

. . . I do use cheaper alternatives where I can, as long as the quality is good. For instance, my 3 flashes are Yongnuo 560 III's which are excellent, and so much cheaper than the Nikon branded units. . .

That descriptive of the Yongnuo Flash Units would not constitute justification to anyone who held the view that the Yongnuo Flash Units were NOT of a suitably good quality.

The bottom line is, you do not fall into their target market (as Manfred stated) and the reason for you not falling into that target market, is because you view that product vastly differently than the way the Manufactures describe it. It appears that you are simply seeking to buy a different product than what is being offered.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

But the question still remains as to how manufacturers can justify such a high price tag.

If you're really serious about the answer to that question, consider asking the manufacturers.

[Acorn]

Can you tell me where to get free paper from?

[Black Pearl]

HOW MUCH???????

Here in the UK I was looking at around £300 ($460 US) for the basic light, with a further £250 ($380 US) for the accessories kit.

So the question is.........How on gods green earth can Westcott justify that figure? There is very little tech in the light, and the accessories are plain, nothing special.

Are we really being taken for idiots now? Remember this was an 'option' to replace my 2 million candle power LED, Lithium powered lamp, which only cost me £60!

John

Did your £60 torch come with a Li-Ion battery and a charger and adapters for worldwide use?
Can the battery be charged and run the light continuously at the same time?
Do the LED's in it have a high CRI rating?
Can you alter the output?
Did it and the battery come with a case?

Yes the Ice Light costs more but it offers more.
Is it good value for money - the photographers using it day-to-day as part of their professional kit to help them earn a living would almost certainly say yes.