Mirrorless cameras cost

[Abitconfused]

OK, mirrorless cameras are all the rage. But shouldn't the cost be less? There is no mirror, prism, eyepiece assembly to make, install and align. The assembly time (cost) should be shorter. They are lighter and somewhat smaller so there is some savings there. Why hasn't this cost savings been passed on to the consumer?

Or am I just a whiner? (A person who habitually complains or grumbles: complainer, crab, faultfinder, grouch, growler, grumbler, grump, murmurer, mutterer. Informal: crank, griper, grouser, loser, liberal).

[Shadowman]

OK, mirrorless cameras are all the rage. But shouldn't the cost be less? There is no mirror, prism, eyepiece assembly to make, install and align. The assembly time (cost) should be shorter. They are lighter and somewhat smaller so there is some savings there. Why hasn't this cost savings been passed on to the consumer?

Or am I just a whiner? (A person who habitually complains or grumbles: complainer, crab, faultfinder, grouch, growler, grumbler, grump, murmurer, mutterer. Informal: crank, griper, grouser, loser, liberal).

Theoretically perhaps (cost should be lower) but beyond the sensor design every other specification is trying to rival the performance of the DSLR.

[Tronhard]

Like all new technology I think you will find that the prices will come down from the initial pricing as the tech becomes more mature and the development costs come down. That said, it's not a simple outlook as this video on the subject investigates.

The video investigates a range of issues like technical development and declining market size and share.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGTTbzx5ejM

While some vehemently disagree with some of Tony Northrop's comments on photography, he does say that market research and analysis was his job when he worked for a fortune 100 company. In any case it's an interesting discussion generator.

[Astro]

Just acquired the new Canon R with lens adaptor. Base price £2300, but after a trade-in of the M5 I got 18 months ago (failed experiment) and 2 'S' series lenses I no longer have a use for, and with a £300 Canon cashback, final takeaway price £1250.

I can live with that, but I suspect I would have resented the list price...

Oh yes... excellent performance ... so far... after 4 weeks use.

[Abitconfused]

Astro, I see Canon mirrorless has somewhat lower resolution in full-frame than Nikon mirrorless but do you think Canon quality mitigates this significantly?

[Manfred M]

First of all, the product cost does not necessarily bear any relationship to the cost of manufacturing something. Costs are based on what people are willing to pay for the product. The marketing gurus at Sony, Canon, Nikon, FujiFilm, etc. all do marketing studies and survey groups to determine what the market will bear when they set their prices. If the product sells well, the price might increase, it it does not, it could come down to reduce excess inventories.

All of the camera suppliers are going to look at what it costs to produce a camera. That not only includes the physical components (raw materials and sub-assemblies) that go into making it, but also the machines and tooling required to make the parts, the cost of the factories, the R&D and engineering / design / testing costs as well as things like marketing, packaging transport / distribution / warehousing, etc. These are worked out on a per unit and the manufacturer will mark up the cost to get the product profit margin. Things like warranty repairs are built into the price too, as are the customer support services from web pages to help lines.

The local distributor and retailer also add mark-ups to cover their costs and profits.

So just because a mirrorless camera has less parts doesn't mean we are going to see that reflect in the price we pay verus a DSLR.

[Manfred M]

While some vehemently disagree with some of Tony Northrop's comments on photography, he does say that market research and analysis was his job when he worked for a fortune 100 company. In any case it's an interesting discussion generator.

It's interesting that Tony also tells us that the Fortune 500 company he worked for doing market research went broke. Somehow his marketing knowledge is just as suspect as hid photographic knowledge. Some of the statements he makes about sales and market share are so crazy that they cannot be defended.

As an example he compares the units of DSLR bodies out there with mirrorless ones. What he doesn't identify are the body types people are going to actually invest in lenses. A few years ago, I remember seeing some information that Nikon (I think) put out where they had data to show that most people that bought low end to mid-range DSLRs never actually bought additional lenses on their cameras. As these tend to be the vast bulk of interchangeable lens camera sales, then any intelligent marketing manager would exclude those from the pool of owners that would buy additional lenses. The people that tend to buy lenses also tend to be the ones that have higher end cameras, regardless of whether these are DSLRs or Mirrorless bodies... These folks are also jumping on the Mirrorless bandwagon.

[Tronhard]

Ha Manfred, I THOUGHT this would elicit some responses! LOL

To be fair to Northrop it was a fortune 100 company, and from my own experience in a large corp being at at senior level does not mean that he engineered the demise of a company, especially if he predicted that it would happen - what the board would have done with that information determined the outcome - not him personally.

I am not in any way saying I agree with his commentary - I think he makes certain assumptions about the market, but what I will agree with is that because of the time to research and develop technology and production lines, the decision to go to digital was made years ago, and the drop in market share for cameras, and specifically ILCs has been accelerating. I suspect they did not expect trend to be so dramatic, otherwise their own financial predictions would have factored that in. If that is so, then this change will have impacted the markets' potential - as he says.

All I will say is that these are uncertain times. The cell phone as a multi-functional device and camera are big market disruptors and as their capabilities increase that trend is likely to continue. I have made my decision to keep with DSLR bodies and lens mounts in the main because I have so much invested in them, but that decision is not so easy for someone starting on their journey and wondering what the market will be like in some years time, including whether their brand or lens mount will still be there.

[Astro]

Canon mirrorless has somewhat lower resolution in full-frame than Nikon mirrorless but do you think Canon quality mitigates this significantly?

Interesting question which I do not think I can answer 'effectively'.

I also have a Canon 5DsR which I acquired some years ago because I shoot a lot of insect macro, and judged the camera to be the best of Canon in respect of 'potential' resolution. The higher megapixel count was attractive since I invariably have difficulties 'filling' the frame. I also use the DsR for stained glass photography where I can exploit the potential achievable resolution, shooting on a tripod. (never known glass to move yet )

I got the new mirrorless intending to use it more for subjects like, landscape, airshows, general wildlife etc.

Both bodies are being used with Canon Lenses.

I have never shot with Nikon, so cannot compare performance, and short of putting my rig(s) on a test bench to compare their performance, it is impossible to form a 'scientific' comparison since shooting in the field (mostly), means that there are a lot of other factors that I cannot control which will be more likely to affect the actual resolution possible in the actual capture conditions.

All that said, I am pleased by the somewhat lighter body, very efficient/faster? time to acquire focus in 'lower' light conditions, and subjectively, the general 'feel' on the camera.

Also, I quite like the brighter image presented in the electronic viewfinder.

James

ps, in respect of a comment made by Manfred, the R model has a limited number of 'body specific' lenses at present. I would expect 'theoretical' better resolutions? with lenses specifically designed for attachment without an adaptor, but whether I would be able to measure/see any improvement over my current configuration.....???

[Manfred M]

Ha Manfred, I THOUGHT this would elicit some responses! LOL

To be fair to Northrop it was a fortune 100 company, and from my own experience in a large corp being at at senior level does not mean that he engineered the demise of a company, especially if he predicted that it would happen - what the board would have done with that information determined the outcome - not him personally.

I am not in any way saying I agree with his commentary - I think he makes certain assumptions about the market, but what I will agree with is that because of the time to research and develop technology and production lines, the decision to go to digital was made years ago, and the drop in market share for cameras, and specifically ILCs has been accelerating. I suspect they did not expect trend to be so dramatic, otherwise their own financial predictions would have factored that in. If that is so, then this change will have impacted the markets' potential - as he says.

All I will say is that these are uncertain times. The cell phone as a multi-functional device and camera are big market disruptors and as their capabilities increase that trend is likely to continue. I have made my decision to keep with DSLR bodies and lens mounts in the main because I have so much invested in them, but that decision is not so easy for someone starting on their journey and wondering what the market will be like in some years time, including whether their brand or lens mount will still be there.

First of all, the one thing that really strikes me is how little he understands both the R&D side of things and production startup of these types of products.

I spent a number of years working for the Canadian Division of a Fortune 500 company where I was the engineering manager. A significant part of my job was managing the team that was responsible for the introduction of new products into the manufacturing operations. Many of the product R&D was performed by the head office R&D / design teams located in the US, but we also had a small team in Canada performing a similar function. Without getting into the products themselves, they were nothing as complex as a full camera, but more along the lines of some of the significant assemblies found in cameras like the shutter, mirror mechanism in a DSLR, etc. The period between finalizing the design and production startup was generally less than 6 months. It could take another month or two to fill product inventory pipeline so that sufficient product was available at launch, but that was about it.

I can 100% reassure you that it does not take 5 years to design a camera. It used to take about 5 years to design a new car model about 25 years ago. These are now turned around in about 24 months and cars (electric and internal combustion engine powered) are far more complex that a camera. When we look at technology products (after all modern cameras are computers that take pictures), it would surprise me that final product decision to launch is any more than 18 months. Frankly something as simple as a new lens mount can be designed in a few days; it's not that hard. Design validation and testing will take a bit longer, but that can be done in parallel to product launch.

Northrup's analysis is highly flawed many of his assumptions are hard to understand or rationalize. The problem that all of the camera manufacturers are facing are, to a large extent, based on the fact that we are dealing with a relatively mature product. Ten years ago the additional quality and functionality of a new camera model effectively made the entire previous generation obsolete overnight. When I look at the incremental quality difference between a camera body launched in 2012 versus one launched in 2016 versus one launched in 2019, the incremental improves are minor compared to what they used to beh. Much like desktop computers and laptops and cell phones, the replacement rate of old products are decreasing because the underlying improved functionality rationale is simply not there. The camera companies are going through that painful adjustment period right now. Some of these companies are going to end up exiting the market.

[DanK]

Manfred hit one of the key points: price is set by demand. Of course, it can't go below the cost of production, but above that, buyers effectively set the prices. That's why SUVs have a much higher margin than regular cars.

Another issue is how large the actual manufacturing costs are as a proportion of sales price. I have no idea what that proportion is in the case of mirrorless cameras, but for many products, it's surprisingly small. One has to add more than the retailer's markups. There are also costs entailed in marketing, shipping, goods damaged in shipping, providing support, dealing with returns, etc.

[rpcrowe]

I wonder what share of their gross profits that Sony, Canon (as well as other companies like Nikon) arrive from cameras and lenses? I know that Sony has its fingers in many.many pies, including television (both producing the units and producing content that folks view on their sets), as well as audio equipment and components and a large share of the video game market. Included with this far reaching diversion is the production of most (if not all) the sensors that are used in most digital cameras. Do they do the same for cell phone sensors? Canon is quite involved with machines like copiers and printers as well as many other types of optical devices. So, just selling or not selling digital cameras and lenses will probably not make or break these companies.

I think that we are at a point, with mirrorless technology, at which we were when the various camera companies switched over from manual focus to auto focus cameas/lenses or perhaps even at the point in which we were at the introduction of digital photography in replacing analog film cameras...

Although I am not the type of photographer who jumps in a bandwagon just to experience new technology. I actually skipped an entire generation of Canon cameras (auto focus film models) but, then jumped right into digital photography with two feet. I never shot another frame of film after I acquired my first DSLR (Canon 10D). Although I am embracing mirrorless digital cameras, I don' think I will abandon the DSLR, like I did my film cameras.

I think that the biggest threat to digital cameras (be they P&S, Bridge, DSLR or mirrorless) is the cell phone. I personally do not enjoy using my cell phones for photography because I simply do not enjoy using the LCD as my viewfinder. However, I suspect that many folks like this because it is easier for them to frame a two dimensional image on an LCD
than through an EVF. Sure you can get great pictures from a phone but, I suspect that the a large percentage of cell phone pics are really crappy and are actually not suitable for anything but viewing on the small screen of the average phone.

TIMES ARE CHANGING

Getting back to the cost o mirrorless gear. Dos anyone remember the staggering cost of digital cameras when they were first introduced?

[Abitconfused]

I think the new mirrorless cameras point to a future were the dedicated camera will continue to exceeded the capabilities of the cell phone. The shorter distance from lens to sensor promises to provide us with smaller, lighter, sharper lenses. Nikon S lenses with stepping motor focus is another indicator of accelerating evolution. Full-frame camera’s will be offering 64-megapixel sensors within five years so there will be no need for a half-frame camera as the full-frame crop mode will be more than sufficient. Future cameras will also respond to voice commands and harbor far better sound recording functionality. Sensors may be able to simulate three dimensional video. Will there ever be a shutterless camera at high resolution?