If anybody wanted a new camera, now's the time!

jec6613

DIS Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Ricoh/Pentax, and Panasonic just announced the biggest still camera discounts in, well, ever. Nearly every major model has significant discounts on bodies, with some mirrorless models being $1k off. About 70% of their camera catalogs and 30% of their lens catalogs saw discounting, as well as some MSRP reductions on top of the discounts from all three of the big manufacturers.

This represents every major full frame still camera system manufacturer except Leica. So if you were on the fence about buying one, now would be when I would jump on it. These mostly all last until June 1, but some vary.
 
Camera sales are really suffering... the manufacturers were thinking/hoping that they had already hit bottom, but the bottom continues to sink rapidly. So this has led to an inventory glut... and great deals for consumers.
 
Well their prices are kind of ridiculous, I think I paid $1,500 for my 5D... the Mark IV is $2,500?? How do they expect customers to replace cameras at those prices. Worse than Disney inflation.
 
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Ricoh/Pentax, and Panasonic just announced the biggest still camera discounts in, well, ever. Nearly every major model has significant discounts on bodies, with some mirrorless models being $1k off. About 70% of their camera catalogs and 30% of their lens catalogs saw discounting, as well as some MSRP reductions on top of the discounts from all three of the big manufacturers.

This represents every major full frame still camera system manufacturer except Leica. So if you were on the fence about buying one, now would be when I would jump on it. These mostly all last until June 1, but some vary.


Time to spend more on essential camera gear .. (except Leica and those that use 20 year old lenses) :)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 


Well their prices are kind of ridiculous, I think I paid $1,500 for my 5D... the Mark IV is $2,500?? How do they expect customers to replace cameras at those prices. Worse than Disney inflation.
The original 5D was $3300 at launch, and only dropped much later in its life cycle, the II, III, and IV all launched at $3500. On the whole, the body prices have been mostly going down except for flagships when inflation adjusted, but lens prices have been going up significantly and annoyingly so. The bodies are the gateway drug to their lenses, anyway.

Olympus dropped some more discounts at midnight Pacific as well, so that's everybody except Fuji and Leica, which I think is appropriate. Both Fuji and Leica are after rangefinder customers, and their primary bodies aren't the reflex body type made by everybody else, so tend to offer a very different shooting experience.

Overall I didn't come across a single body that had pricing/features that is out of line from other manufacturers' competitive offerings at this point, except Sony in FF mirrorless, and they're clearly trying to grab as much market share as possible while they still can with products that don't have features that align well to what customers traditionally purchase (the A7R and A7S don't line up to any current DSLR, and the A9 only lines up to the spot previously held by the D700). I know of no invested Canon or Nikon shooter that would seriously consider switching outside of their brands since the R and Z launches.

The few products without substantial discounts are where the product stands alone without much competition from the mirrorless side and is a low production model to begin with. The Df, D5, F6, and all Sony DSLRs have no discounts, but if you want one of those you'll almost certainly be willing to pay full price. The D850, D500, 5DS, 7D, and 1DX have pretty standard graduation/mother's day/father's day discounts for this point in their product life cycle. The only one of those with a directly comparable mirrorless competitor strictly on features is the D850, but that's from Nikon's own Z7, so they gave them both similar discounts.
 
Some of the prices are just ridiculous. Think Sony A7III or a Canon R. My assumption is the sensor is becoming a much larger percentage of the cost and that chip prices are increasing faster than everything else that goes into a unit? Does anyone know?
 
The original 5D was $3300 at launch, and only dropped much later in its life cycle, the II, III, and IV all launched at $3500. On the whole, the body prices have been mostly going down except for flagships when inflation adjusted, but lens prices have been going up significantly and annoyingly so. The bodies are the gateway drug to their lenses, anyway.
Olympus dropped some more discounts at midnight Pacific as well, so that's everybody except Fuji and Leica, which I think is appropriate. Both Fuji and Leica are after rangefinder customers, and their primary bodies aren't the reflex body type made by everybody else, so tend to offer a very different shooting experience.
Overall I didn't come across a single body that had pricing/features that is out of line from other manufacturers' competitive offerings at this point, except Sony in FF mirrorless, and they're clearly trying to grab as much market share as possible while they still can with products that don't have features that align well to what customers traditionally purchase (the A7R and A7S don't line up to any current DSLR, and the A9 only lines up to the spot previously held by the D700). I know of no invested Canon or Nikon shooter that would seriously consider switching outside of their brands since the R and Z launches.
The few products without substantial discounts are where the product stands alone without much competition from the mirrorless side and is a low production model to begin with. The Df, D5, F6, and all Sony DSLRs have no discounts, but if you want one of those you'll almost certainly be willing to pay full price. The D850, D500, 5DS, 7D, and 1DX have pretty standard graduation/mother's day/father's day discounts for this point in their product life cycle. The only one of those with a directly comparable mirrorless competitor strictly on features is the D850, but that's from Nikon's own Z7, so they gave them both similar discounts.

yes, it's all about the 'gateway drug' to lenses

fortunately mirrorless cameras can easily use 20 year old lenses .... just say no ! :)
(to reflex cameras and new lens)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Last edited:


Some of the prices are just ridiculous. Think Sony A7III or a Canon R. My assumption is the sensor is becoming a much larger percentage of the cost and that chip prices are increasing faster than everything else that goes into a unit? Does anyone know?
The sensor price in FF is coming down, it's now only about 4x the cost of an APS-C sensor where it used to be 10x the cost (Canon doesn't disclose, but they're probably similar) - $400 for a 24 MP FF sensor and $100 for a 24 MP APS-C sensor in trays of 1,000 from a Sony fab, depending on what features you want on the sensor. The Nikon 20 MP sensor is probably around $150 for APS-C, for instance, while the Z7/A7RIII/D850 sensor is likely around $600-$800 each, and the D750/D610 sensor may now be as low as $250 as it's a very old model.

They're really trying to reset the prices back to where they were with DSLRs, even though mirrorless are cheaper to produce, with shipped out of the door costs between $800 and $1,200 for the major 24 MP bodies even at their current low volume. That's of course before the dealer cut, import duties and so on. With the lower camera volume total going forward the margin must come back or you will see companies exit the market rapidly. To bring the volume margin back, that's also why you're seeing much more part interchangeability - swap one circuit board in production and you change from a Z6 to a Z7, there are about 10 different parts between the A7 III models, and the Z6/Z7 shutter is even mostly interchangeable with a D850.

But to give an idea of how much it's collapsed and continues to, Nikon shipped more D5100 bodies in its 18 month production run than the entire camera market will move ILCs per year by 2025 or so. With only 4-5M ILC bodies to sell each year, expect fewer models and more commonality to become a theme in the next few years - another advantage a MILC has over a DSLR, fewer parts to change out for a new model.
 
The sensor price in FF is coming down, it's now only about 4x the cost of an APS-C sensor where it used to be 10x the cost (Canon doesn't disclose, but they're probably similar) - $400 for a 24 MP FF sensor and $100 for a 24 MP APS-C sensor in trays of 1,000 from a Sony fab, depending on what features you want on the sensor. The Nikon 20 MP sensor is probably around $150 for APS-C, for instance, while the Z7/A7RIII/D850 sensor is likely around $600-$800 each, and the D750/D610 sensor may now be as low as $250 as it's a very old model.
They're really trying to reset the prices back to where they were with DSLRs, even though mirrorless are cheaper to produce, with shipped out of the door costs between $800 and $1,200 for the major 24 MP bodies even at their current low volume. That's of course before the dealer cut, import duties and so on. With the lower camera volume total going forward the margin must come back or you will see companies exit the market rapidly. To bring the volume margin back, that's also why you're seeing much more part interchangeability - swap one circuit board in production and you change from a Z6 to a Z7, there are about 10 different parts between the A7 III models, and the Z6/Z7 shutter is even mostly interchangeable with a D850.
But to give an idea of how much it's collapsed and continues to, Nikon shipped more D5100 bodies in its 18 month production run than the entire camera market will move ILCs per year by 2025 or so. With only 4-5M ILC bodies to sell each year, expect fewer models and more commonality to become a theme in the next few years - another advantage a MILC has over a DSLR, fewer parts to change out for a new model.

the camera industry has indeed collapsed, - especially Nikon
and mirrorless cameras have fewer moving parts and are cheaper to produce
but one would have to be a cost accountant to really know the cost of individual components of a camera

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Some of the prices are just ridiculous. Think Sony A7III or a Canon R. My assumption is the sensor is becoming a much larger percentage of the cost and that chip prices are increasing faster than everything else that goes into a unit? Does anyone know?

Ridiculously high or lower?
The prices are all time low. But makers are moving to more expensive full frame cameras.
But especially when you account for inflation, there were never new $2000 full frame models before. The first full frame DSLRs were $5000+

The sensor is one of the most expensive elements in a camera and full frame sensors are much more expensive than aps-c sensors. But the prices have come way down.
So in the 2005-2010 time frame, aps-c cameras were going for $1000 and full frame cameras were $4000+

In the early 2010’s, full frame camera prices dropped to $3000 price range.

Now... you can get aps-c cameras for under $500 and full frame models for under $2000.

If you account for inflation... camera pricing is at all time lows, down about 60-70% off their peak.
 
The sensor price in FF is coming down, it's now only about 4x the cost of an APS-C sensor where it used to be 10x the cost (Canon doesn't disclose, but they're probably similar) - $400 for a 24 MP FF sensor and $100 for a 24 MP APS-C sensor in trays of 1,000 from a Sony fab, depending on what features you want on the sensor. The Nikon 20 MP sensor is probably around $150 for APS-C, for instance, while the Z7/A7RIII/D850 sensor is likely around $600-$800 each, and the D750/D610 sensor may now be as low as $250 as it's a very old model.

They're really trying to reset the prices back to where they were with DSLRs, even though mirrorless are cheaper to produce, with shipped out of the door costs between $800 and $1,200 for the major 24 MP bodies even at their current low volume. That's of course before the dealer cut, import duties and so on. With the lower camera volume total going forward the margin must come back or you will see companies exit the market rapidly. To bring the volume margin back, that's also why you're seeing much more part interchangeability - swap one circuit board in production and you change from a Z6 to a Z7, there are about 10 different parts between the A7 III models, and the Z6/Z7 shutter is even mostly interchangeable with a D850.

But to give an idea of how much it's collapsed and continues to, Nikon shipped more D5100 bodies in its 18 month production run than the entire camera market will move ILCs per year by 2025 or so. With only 4-5M ILC bodies to sell each year, expect fewer models and more commonality to become a theme in the next few years - another advantage a MILC has over a DSLR, fewer parts to change out for a new model.

Fewer and cheaper parts is essential for them... Because as volume declines, their per unit production costs go up. So they need to offset the costs of decreased volume. If they raise prices, demand will only drop even more. They are all in a price war now in order to preserve as much of the market (and market share) as possible.
But if you have: Increased per unit/part cost. And want to-- Cut price.
And if you don't want to completely lose profitability... you need to find other ways to cut those production costs -- fewer parts, more interchange of parts, getting rid of the most expensive parts (like getting rid of pentaprism mirrors).
The cost cutting has gotten so extreme.... They used to make profit from cheap models by selling in massive volume. But with the decline in volume, they can't milk profits from a cheap Canon Rebel anymore. So they move up to more expensive models -- where even with a price war, they can still build in a decent profit per unit. (and the demand has been slightly more stable for higher end cameras... at least not collapsing to the same degree).
 
The first full frame DSLRs were $5000+
Or even add another zero above that - some of the early Kodak DSLRs where they took an existing film body and stuffed a digital back into it were monsters with five figure price tags, and the Canon 1Ds (the first full frame DSLR from a system manufacturer) launched at $8,000. And by the build standards of today, many of these early cameras were very poorly built as well.

It wasn't until the 5D in 2005 that full frame came below the $5,000 mark, and not until 2007/2008 (D3, D700, 5D Mk II) that full frame digital exceeded the pure performance of low ISO negative or slide film and had the body build quality to back it up, and not until 2011-ish (Sony 16 MP CMOS sensor) that APS-C sensor performance caught up to film. Technically even today if you want low ISO black and white the highest resolution image in full frame is the dedicated panchromats: Ilford Delta, Kodak T-Max, or the Leica M Monochrom, though the margin is getting slimmer every day.

And then you have weirdo things like the Nikon SVC that were technically, "Full frame," but used a tiny video sensor and a bunch of optics. The whole history of early digital photography and our still continuing transition to digital is fascinating, and not yet complete.
 
Or even add another zero above that - some of the early Kodak DSLRs where they took an existing film body and stuffed a digital back into it were monsters with five figure price tags, and the Canon 1Ds (the first full frame DSLR from a system manufacturer) launched at $8,000. And by the build standards of today, many of these early cameras were very poorly built as well.
It wasn't until the 5D in 2005 that full frame came below the $5,000 mark, and not until 2007/2008 (D3, D700, 5D Mk II) that full frame digital exceeded the pure performance of low ISO negative or slide film and had the body build quality to back it up, and not until 2011-ish (Sony 16 MP CMOS sensor) that APS-C sensor performance caught up to film. Technically even today if you want low ISO black and white the highest resolution image in full frame is the dedicated panchromats: Ilford Delta, Kodak T-Max, or the Leica M Monochrom, though the margin is getting slimmer every day.
And then you have weirdo things like the Nikon SVC that were technically, "Full frame," but used a tiny video sensor and a bunch of optics. The whole history of early digital photography and our still continuing transition to digital is fascinating, and not yet complete.

kinda like the first cell phones were $5,000 .... and talk about limited build standards and features !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Fewer and cheaper parts is essential for them... Because as volume declines, their per unit production costs go up. So they need to offset the costs of decreased volume. If they raise prices, demand will only drop even more. They are all in a price war now in order to preserve as much of the market (and market share) as possible.
But if you have: Increased per unit/part cost. And want to-- Cut price.
And if you don't want to completely lose profitability... you need to find other ways to cut those production costs -- fewer parts, more interchange of parts, getting rid of the most expensive parts (like getting rid of pentaprism mirrors).
The cost cutting has gotten so extreme.... They used to make profit from cheap models by selling in massive volume. But with the decline in volume, they can't milk profits from a cheap Canon Rebel anymore. So they move up to more expensive models -- where even with a price war, they can still build in a decent profit per unit. (and the demand has been slightly more stable for higher end cameras... at least not collapsing to the same degree).
Exactly.

And it's not even that the pentaprism (or pentamirror in cheap cameras), mirror, and dedicated AF module is that expensive, it's that it's a mechanical system that must be calibrated precisely, especially in higher end cameras that tend to use faster glass. The reason Nikon and Canon never release any really fast consumer glass is that on the cameras they were paired with, they just didn't have that sort of tight tolerance.

One of the more interesting changes Nikon made that will probably pay off long term but definitely hasn't yet today just because of the low volume, is tighten the sensor mount tolerances in component manufacture, so they no longer need to shim the sensor during assembly. The ultra fine adjustment is done by adding a register distance correction to the IBIS system. Sony and Canon still shim the sensor for now, but knowing how Japanese companies try to work together they will probably switch over to the Nikon system in the next few years. The Z mount lenses also use the Canon system of thinner/thicker mounts, rather than the F mount system of shims, and Canon, Nikon and Sony all use lenses that focus past infinity at all temperatures so that the register distance on the lens isn't nearly as critical, which they can get away with since they don't have a dedicated AF module (the f/0.95 Noct is stated to be the exception to this, it uses full traditional manufacture as it's manual focus).

Right now though, the current market pivot leaves existing consumers in a bit of a pickle if they're with the big three for enthusiast and pro cameras since Canon and Nikon haven't fleshed out their lineups yet: Nikon needs pro glass and APS-C, and Canon needs decent bodies, consumer glass, and to pick a mount, and Sony needs a competent UI designer, better build quality, and feature completeness (getting an intervalometer just last month via firmware is pretty boneheaded). The only people with a clear path to move out of DSLR right now are 6D, D610, D750, D800 and D810, who should move to the EOS R/RP or Z6/Z7. On the flipside, unless you need something photographically in the next couple of years or your body is dead/problematic, there's little reason to buy a DSLR right now with mirrorless models coming down the pipe. The only exceptions I see to this are weird bodies like the Df or F6, but those are hardly mainstream.

But if somebody were to buy a consumer/hobbyist digital camera setup today starting from scratch, I'd hands down say skip the big 3 and buy a Fuji X system, with the sole exception of people wanting long telephoto reach for sports/wildlife and high framerate, where I'd say Nikon based on their D7500, D500, 80-200, 300 f/4E, 500 f/5.6E and 200-500 f/5.6E. Fuji just makes good bodies that make ergonomic and feature sense and there isn't a dud lens in their lineup, which is the best around for an APS-C sensor. Sadly they're not involved in this big sale, but the reasons I've just stated are probably why. :)
 
Exactly.

And it's not even that the pentaprism (or pentamirror in cheap cameras), mirror, and dedicated AF module is that expensive, it's that it's a mechanical system that must be calibrated precisely, especially in higher end cameras that tend to use faster glass. The reason Nikon and Canon never release any really fast consumer glass is tat on the cameras they were paired with, they just didn't have that sort of tight tolerance.
One of the more interesting changes Nikon made that will probably pay off long term but definitely hasn't yet today just because of the low volume, is tighten the sensor mount tolerances in component manufacture, so they no longer need to shim the sensor during assembly. The ultra fine adjustment is done by adding a register distance correction to the IBIS system. Sony and Canon still shim the sensor for now, but knowing how Japanese companies try to work together they will probably switch over to the Nikon system in the next few years. The Z mount lenses also use the Canon system of thinner/thicker mounts, rather than the F mount system of shims, and Canon, Nikon and Sony all use lenses that focus past infinity at all temperatures so that the register distance on the lens isn't non and Nikon haven't fleshed out their lineups yet: Nikon needs pro glass and APS-C, and Canon needs decent bodies, consumer glass, and to pick a mount, and Sony needs a competent UI designer, better build quality, and feature completeness (getting an intervalometer just last month via firmware is pretty boneheaded). The only people with a clear path to move out of DSLR right now are 6D, D610, D750, D800 and D810, who should move to the EOS R/RP or Z6/Z7. On the flipside, unless you need something photographically in the next couple of years or your body is dead/problematic, there's little reason to buy a DSLR right now with mirrorless models coming down the pipe. The only exceptions I see to this are weird bodies like the Df or F6, but those are hardly mainstream.
300 f/4E, 500 f/5.6E and 200-500 f/5.6E. Fuji just makes good bodies that make ergonomic and feature sense and there isn't a dud lens in their lineup, which is the best around for an APS-C sensor. Sadly they're not involved in this big sale, but the reasons I've just stated are probably why. :)

I agree, - with the easy adaptability of lenses Canon and Nikon will probably dominate the mirrorless market just as they did with DSLR's
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Yeah, I get what y'all are saying about relative pricing over time. And I haven't had a need to purchase a body in ~2 years so haven't been paying attention. But, dang. I'm kinda invested into my system (especially CPS support) so with what you've said about change in production, there's no up for me now. I have to relearn all what I thought I knew about cameras and economics?

I ran several comparisons on CameraDecisions and, per dollar, I'm still a DSLR person. Mirrorless is nice but I can't make a financial argument for changing out a 1D and 5D (I'm not anyone's target audience). Is that the way things are going? More money for glass, I guess.
 
I fell into the same category as you, with the D500. There's just nothing yet for me in mirrorless, where I can get 7+ FPS crop sensor while using a mechanical shutter, weather sealing, and a nice big grip without throwing a battery grip on it, so when my D7200s started having trouble and with 150k on the shutters, I went for the D500 as my primary shooter. I did agonize and rent quite a bit though, but that bottomless buffer (I can shoot 200 shot bursts uninterrupted at full speed until I fill my card) sold me. And that's not even factoring in your CPS support. About the only camp you could move into and get close to that is Nikon, but what does that really get you? Some more dynamic range and other modest improvements that Canon will catch up with and probably surpass in a few years anyway is not enough to switch brands and re-learn everything.

The 1D and 5D should be getting updates, just like there's going to be a D6 and almost certainly a D860, so you at least have that for now. Even if you use older bodies, that will bring the prices on the older ones down significantly. You're a very important target audience, but one where the price of cameras is simply less important compared to pure performance - PJs, sports and wildlife photogs fall into that wheelhouse, and for now a DSLR still offers a fairly significant low light continuous and flash advantages just due to electronic shutter issues, and the highest speed mirrorless mechanical shutter tops out at 5.5 FPS. Oh, and electronic shutters are garbage under gym lights right now.

While you're buying glass though, I'd suggest going for telephoto lenses more than wide angle. When you some day move to an R mount, the wide angles for mirrorless are much smaller and higher performance than on a DSLR, since they don't need to be strongly retrofocal to clear the mirror. For telephoto though, there's much less room for improvement either in performance or size by jumping to mirrorless, particularly with primes that tend to be almost perfectly corrected edge to edge already, so those make the most sense to use as adapted lenses.
 
You ever hear the old saw about the measure of a person is based on how much they agree with you<G>? I'm covered on WA but am really jonesing for an EF500.

But I'm not thrilled with the "you some day move to an R mount". I can remember having to say goodbye to my FD stuff and what that cost me. I know it's the future, but you just had to bring it up. This is starting to remind me of converting from film to digital and that whole paradigm shift. You gotta wonder if the camera companies sit around, chuckling with evil glee, as they come up with some new design factor.
 
At least with EF to R, there's a mount converter that has 100% compatibility, unlike with FD where they seemed to redo the mount just to redo the mount, so no need to dump the glass until you're ready. :)

It could be worse, I'm sitting with a bunch of F mount stuff and a compatibility nightmare. I love having the ability to mount some old glass that gives a really nice rendering, but try explaining the compatibility of Auto, AI, AF, AF-D, G, VR, AF-S, E aperture, and now AF-P to someone. I literally need Excel to explain it.
 
Yeah, I get what y'all are saying about relative pricing over time. And I haven't had a need to purchase a body in ~2 years so haven't been paying attention. But, dang. I'm kinda invested into my system (especially CPS support) so with what you've said about change in production, there's no up for me now. I have to relearn all what I thought I knew about cameras and economics?
I ran several comparisons on CameraDecisions and, per dollar, I'm still a DSLR person. Mirrorless is nice but I can't make a financial argument for changing out a 1D and 5D (I'm not anyone's target audience). Is that the way things are going? More money for glass, I guess.

At least with EF to R, there's a mount converter that has 100% compatibility, unlike with FD where they seemed to redo the mount just to redo the mount, so no need to dump the glass until you're ready. :)
It could be worse, I'm sitting with a bunch of F mount stuff and a compatibility nightmare. I love having the ability to mount some old glass that gives a really nice rendering, but try explaining the compatibility of Auto, AI, AF, AF-D, G, VR, AF-S, E aperture, and now AF-P to someone. I literally need Excel to explain it.

that's why it's so easy with mirrorless. I'm still using my 20 year old lenses ...... with a $20 ebay adapter !!

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


Untitled by c w, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top