DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> DSLR? why so much?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2005 01:10:09 AM · #1
Ok..I know the DSLR's have aperture settings that go up to F16 and shutterspeeds that can freeze a bullet. But being that I know little about cameras compared to DSLR owners, and I only own a measly $350 dollar Sony, I'd appreciate it if someone told me why these camera's are so expensive. Canon must be the best. Or is it Nikon. I will buy one eventually, but Ill stick with my Sony for now because Im still new.
02/08/2005 01:19:45 AM · #2
It's not the DSLR price that will get you--it's the lenses and filters! I want to know why filters so expensive.

Why, for example are decent 77mm polarizers $175-$275!

It seems to me that a lot of equipment, once it gets close to "pro" quality, is simply priced higher because it overlaps the professional market.
02/08/2005 01:21:56 AM · #3
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Ok..I know the DSLR's have aperture settings that go up to F16


All DSLRs are capable of going well beyond f/16 depending on the particular lens attached.

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:


I'd appreciate it if someone told me why these camera's are so expensive.


Because the technology is still fairly new and because they can get what they are charging. People who demand high resolution images have no problem dishing out the extra bucks.

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:


Canon must be the best. Or is it Nikon.


At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices.
02/08/2005 01:23:26 AM · #4
what does DSLR stand for? shapiro, is your camera a DSLR? are the polarizers included? thats alot of money for a filter. My camera is equipped with a Carl Zeiss lens. the Salesperson at the store I bought my camera from said he is the best lens maker.
02/08/2005 01:26:31 AM · #5
nsbca...your camera amazes me. Im thinking about selling my car. But that might be enough for the downpayment on the camera. 11 million pixels!! geez!
02/08/2005 01:28:55 AM · #6
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

what does DSLR stand for?


Digital Single Lens Reflex. SLR is camera that has a mirror and a penta prism so that the photographer is actually looking through the lens when he or she looks into the viewfinder.
02/08/2005 01:29:43 AM · #7
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

what does DSLR stand for? shapiro, is your camera a DSLR? are the polarizers included? thats alot of money for a filter. My camera is equipped with a Carl Zeiss lens. the Salesperson at the store I bought my camera from said he is the best lens maker.


The Rebel is a DSLR, Digital SLR, where SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex. In an SLR or DSLR, you are looking through the lens when you compose your pictures rather than in a separate viewfinder.

I suggest looking at some sites like Steve's Digicams, www.steves-digicams.com and Digital Photography Review (//www.dpreview.com). There are articles and reviews with complete details of lots of cameras both DSLR and not.

02/08/2005 01:30:11 AM · #8
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

what does DSLR stand for? shapiro, is your camera a DSLR? are the polarizers included? thats alot of money for a filter. My camera is equipped with a Carl Zeiss lens. the Salesperson at the store I bought my camera from said he is the best lens maker.


SLR stands for "Single Lens Reflex", which describes the mechanics of the camera. Simply put, it means that when you look through the viewfinder, you are looking at a reflection of what comes through the lens, mirrored up to your eye. This mirror covers the film (in a 35mm SLR) or the sensor (in a dSLR), until you push the shutter button, which then raises the mirror out of the way and exposes the film, or the image onto the sensor.

SLRs are also known for the ability to use interchangeable lenses.

dSLR simply stands for digital SLR or Single Lens Reflex.

Does this help?

doh, nshapiro must have posted while I was writing this.. I'll keep it up though.

Message edited by author 2005-02-08 01:30:46.
02/08/2005 01:30:30 AM · #9
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

nsbca...your camera amazes me. Im thinking about selling my car. But that might be enough for the downpayment on the camera. 11 million pixels!! geez!


And just think how amazing it would be if it actually worked.
02/08/2005 03:08:13 AM · #10
Ruler,

In a word, you're paying for P R E C I S I O N when you buy equipment at this level. Tight manufacturing tolerances, basically. This is especially true with lenses, where the differnece in cost between mid-range and high-end optics is staggering. This explains the high cost of the really good filters; they are made of optical quality glass, to very fine tolerances, especially critical with a polarizing filter.

With the dSLR bodies themselves, you are also paying for research and development. The newest technology always markets at a premium, then trickles back down to a more reasonable price as it is superseded by something else. Case in point; my Nikon 5700, a "prosumer" (no interchangeable lens on this camera) was state of the art when I got it a couple years ago and cost me 1400 dollars. Check out the pricing on it now. It's a much better camera than my very similar appearing previous generation fuji was, with a much stronger body and better optics, and the Fuji cost me almost that much when I bought IT new, a couple years before that.

I can't even IMAGINE going into dSLR country now, even though I'm a former professional photographer with a real taste for expensive lenses and bodies; As near as I can figure, to get to where I'd have to be to make it worth my while, technologically, I'd have to shell out upwards of 7,500 dollars in body and lenses to cover the bases, and I'd have this package I'd have to haul around with me... The Nikon I can carry in one hand all day long, it's such an easy and natural thing to have around.

My next upgrade will be another prosumer with more megapixels, I'm sure.

Robt.
02/08/2005 03:32:07 AM · #11
DSLR cameras with the right glass and accessories in the right hands are by far the best cameras to have. I have been dreaming of getting a DSLR ever since I joined this site but I have found a few drawbacks to the DSLR, for me at least.
1. Price Even though the cost of the camera body is not to far out of reach for me but then I have to buy the glass and accessories. And I have learned that the glass and accessories can end up costing you more that the camera body if you get the best glass available and I believe to get the most out of the camera, thats what you purchased it for, you have to get the best glass.
2. Up Keep Correct me if Im wrong, but the up keep of a DSLR is more extensive than a good point and shot or what most call prosumer cameras. Every time you change glass you have the potential to get dust on the sensor and other artifacts. Which can cause you to have to seen the camera to repair if you are not able to clean it yourself. A non-DSLR all you have to worry about is keeping the lens clean on the outside and be responsible in handling it.
3. Cost vs. Improvement - I guess the biggest thing for me is will the DSLR make me take better pictures. At the level I am at now I cannot justify putting that kind of money into a camera. Yes the camera can produce better quality but only if I have the eye to see.

So if you have the money to spend on a DSLR, Glass, and Accessories and you feel like you have reached the limits of your procumer camera then it may be worth the money, for me I have not reached that point.

Message edited by author 2005-02-08 03:34:54.
02/08/2005 05:24:55 AM · #12
Hi

I believe why DSLRs are so expensive is due to:
1) High quality of camera body.
2) High quality lenses.
3) Most important - precision to which each camera component is made.

02/08/2005 05:35:17 AM · #13
Don't forget that the manufacture of sensors is hugely expensive, the price goes up logarithmically as the sensor gets larger. As far as I'm aware, this is one of the main reason for the high costs of DSLRs. It's why no prosumers use a large sensor, which would allow for high ISOs and better quality photos.
02/08/2005 05:53:27 AM · #14
Also, basic economics plays a big role in this as well. SLRs are the top of the line, they allow the professional to hand-pick each component of the package -- and build that package with the quality and characteristics he desires. To design and build a system like this takes a lot of investment. While there will be a lot of SLR equipment sold, each individual component will not be bought by each purchaser. The (much) smaller customer base means the high cost of R&D has to be paid by fewer people -- thus the higher prices.

Furthermore, just to pour a little salt on the open wound, the next evolution in prosumer equipment will contain improvements developed for SLRs. These improvements will not have the high cost of developement associated witht them -- just the cost of integration -- so the professionals are paying for the development of not only their own cameras, but the next evolution in prosumer cameras as well.

Being on the cutting edge hurts. ;)

David
02/08/2005 07:36:32 AM · #15
Badassedness usually has a price tag attached to it.
02/08/2005 07:51:29 AM · #16
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

... I will buy one eventually, but Ill stick with my Sony for now because Im still new.


This is exactly what I did. I owned the V1 until I understood what every setting did and I started to really understand what a DSLR could offer me. I decided to make the jump to DSLR and am glad I did. The difference is night and day both in terms of image quality and ease of use of the camera. DSLRs are a whole different animal than a P&S camera.

Anyway I hope you stick with it and enjoy the Sony it has many nice features that will keep you busy quite a while IMO.
02/08/2005 08:00:01 AM · #17
While the added technoloy can produce miracles it's creativity is usually limited by the knucklehead using it. Or at least that's what people who look at my photos tell me.
02/08/2005 10:17:09 AM · #18
Originally posted by nshapiro:

It's not the DSLR price that will get you--it's the lenses and filters! I want to know why filters so expensive.

Why, for example are decent 77mm polarizers $175-$275!

It seems to me that a lot of equipment, once it gets close to "pro" quality, is simply priced higher because it overlaps the professional market.


The colution to the filter cost is to go with the Cokin filter system. A circ pl filter is about $60 for a good one, $25 for a cheap one. Other filters run $10-30 each and there are over 150 of them, and you can make your own too. The cost to fit ANY of the filters to ANY lens is $10 for the adapter ring.
02/08/2005 10:22:33 AM · #19
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Ok..I know the DSLR's have aperture settings that go up to F16 and shutterspeeds that can freeze a bullet. But being that I know little about cameras compared to DSLR owners, and I only own a measly $350 dollar Sony, I'd appreciate it if someone told me why these camera's are so expensive. Canon must be the best. Or is it Nikon. I will buy one eventually, but Ill stick with my Sony for now because Im still new.


the cost is in many places, mainly the sensor - it is about 6 times bigger in the D70/300D than in a fixed lens camera.

As for freezing a bullet - the flash does that, not the lens speed. My Fuji 602 non-DLSR has a lens speed of up to 1/10,000 sec. It has no mechancial shutter and does have shutter lag- like ALL non-dSLR cameras (the sensor is turned on and off to get the pic). My Rebel has a max speed of 1/4000 or 1/2000 (not sure, won't be using it at that speeed anyway). The shutter is mechancial, just like a film camera - hit the button and it gets the pic, no delay.

The lenses come in 3 qualities - consumer ($150 and less generally), amateur (150-500 generally) and professional ($500 to 60,000).

As for Nikon vs Canon - that is like Ford vs Chevy. Very much a matter of opinion. Nikon was the better film SLR, i think canon is the better (more innovative) digital SLR company.

Regardless, it is more the photographer than the tools that make great pics.
02/08/2005 10:33:47 AM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by nshapiro:

It's not the DSLR price that will get you--it's the lenses and filters! I want to know why filters so expensive.

Why, for example are decent 77mm polarizers $175-$275!

It seems to me that a lot of equipment, once it gets close to "pro" quality, is simply priced higher because it overlaps the professional market.


The colution to the filter cost is to go with the Cokin filter system. A circ pl filter is about $60 for a good one, $25 for a cheap one. Other filters run $10-30 each and there are over 150 of them, and you can make your own too. The cost to fit ANY of the filters to ANY lens is $10 for the adapter ring.


Yes, you're right, and that's in fact what I did. I bought the Cokin P system, and a polarizer which now can be used with my 10-22 and my 70-200mm lenses. And I've already bought an assortment of filters, including a polarizer, a GND, and the blanks I can use to easily experiment with impressionism.

But it's not a perfect system--hard to get on and off the lens, the adapter seems to need to be taken off to change the polarizer for another filter (I have the wide adapter). I still can't get the square hood to snap in right. And try putting it in the camera bag that way!

The other alternative would have been to guess my biggest diameter size and buy step ups and a single polarizer, etc. No perfect solution either way.
02/08/2005 10:34:45 AM · #21
I may eventually go the dslr route...maybe not. I suppose it depends on the technology that is available when I have the budget and desire to move beyond my current camera.

I have very much enjoyed my Sony 717. I am still learning (after a year and 1/2!) to maximize it's features to stretch my skills. I like the fact that it offers manual settings, although I wish the range was a bit wider. I think for the price, it's the best non-SLR value.

When I am ready to move beyond it's capabilities, I'll have to think long and hard about spending the kind of money I know it will take to make a step-up worthwhile. I guess it all boils down to priorities and when you've got kids, a household, and other financial obligations sometimes it's just not possible no matter how much I want it. I don't do credit (except for car and mortgage), so that's a hunk of cash to come up with.
02/08/2005 10:41:09 AM · #22
As others have said the larger sensor adds a lot to the cost.
There are more parts in a DLSR then a non-DSLR, in a non-SLR the imaging chip is used for both setting the exposure and running the auto-focus, in a DSLR the sensor chip is not getting any of the light before the exposure and so it needs extra sensors for both the light meter part and the auto-focus.
Then tend to put in higher end electronics into a DSLR, the processor chip in the 20D is really amazingly fast.

Lastly they work a lot better so you can charge more for them.
02/08/2005 10:51:38 AM · #23
Originally posted by nsbca7:


At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices.


This is truly a silly statement.

There are pros and cons to both lines. Canon does some great things, and Nikon does some great things. Between any two models you find tradeoffs, and many of those trade-offs shift around every six months or so. Unless you are a professional with a specific niche that caters to one brand's capabilities you should not let your decision be clouded by religion. And if you ARE a pro with a niche, you already know which you need and why.

When your time comes, go to a camera store (a REAL one, not a VIRTUAL one) and hold each camera in your hands. Take a few images with each one. You can find quality glass in both lines (which will be more important than body in the long run), and both lines are more than capable of taking publication grade images.
02/08/2005 11:01:19 AM · #24
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Ok..I know the DSLR's have aperture settings that go up to F16 and shutterspeeds that can freeze a bullet. But being that I know little about cameras compared to DSLR owners, and I only own a measly $350 dollar Sony, I'd appreciate it if someone told me why these camera's are so expensive. Canon must be the best. Or is it Nikon. I will buy one eventually, but Ill stick with my Sony for now because Im still new.


Imagine the precision that goes into moving something so quickly that it can stop a bullet... That's hefty engineering, and extremely tight quality control. All cost money. But what's really getting you is the manufacturing cost of the sensor die. This is why a full frame dSLR requries a mortgage and an APS sized sensor is within reach.

Don't sweat your gear until you can call out specific images which you are unable to create with it. When you're ready, going with Canon or Nikon is a very safe decision. But don't expect an SLR to improve your photography - most folks I know of actually find their image quality takes an intial dive. When you switch to an SLR you have so many more options to control creative aspects that your brain is less focused on the image you are creating and more on the settings. Takes time to "become one" with an SLR and let your brain get back to focusing on the creative process.

As mentioned before, the body is nothing compared to what you'll invest in glass for it. A single fast zoom will exceed the cost of most bodies. An SLR is a long term investment in optics. Just like any other investment, don't make it until you are ready. In the mean time, master the art of composition with what you have.
02/08/2005 11:26:56 AM · #25
Originally posted by SDW65:

2. Up Keep Correct me if Im wrong, but the up keep of a DSLR is more extensive than a good point and shot or what most call prosumer cameras. Every time you change glass you have the potential to get dust on the sensor and other artifacts. Which can cause you to have to seen the camera to repair if you are not able to clean it yourself. A non-DSLR all you have to worry about is keeping the lens clean on the outside and be responsible in handling it.


Olympus thought of this and made a hypersonic wave creater that shakes all dust off the sensor on the 300 Evolt. I wish I could justify a DSLR-cause that would be the one I get.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/10/2018 01:51:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/10/2018 01:51:30 AM EST.