Cameras are now vastly too expensive

[Matt..]

I have needed a new camera for years, but haven't purchased anything as they seem so incredibly overpriced for the technology they currently offer.

I need to replace a very old Canon 5dmk2. I want to replace it with a camera with similar (ideally better) build quality, and exceptional photo quality.

This means cameras like the Canon EOS R6, or Sony A7/A7R series.

The cameras are now £2.5k+, and mostly require new lenses. Lenses I'm more comfortable with the ~£1k cost.

Does anyone else see these new cameras as being hugely overpriced for the technology they actually offer? These camera companies seem to be throwing out the same tech for YEARS, and charging more and more each year as their market continues to shrink.

I'm definitely stuck in a position of not wanting to spend thousands on a camera that does give a big jump from my very old 5dmk2, and tech wise seems old.

Am I wrong to be thinking this? Is it actually reasonable for camera bodies at this level to be £2.5k+?

[Matt..]

blindspot said:

Well, the 5d Mk 2 was released at £2250 in 2009 (according to an old AP review). Quick look at the BOE inflation calculator suggests that equates to a little over £3k in 2021 money. So, a 5dmk V from WEX at £2869 doesn't seem wildly unreasonable, even if you think quality hasn't got that much better.

In 2009 a 5dmk2 was vastly better than many other cameras available, and people were using other cameras, and phones were terrible for photos.

The gap is now much closer. Camera tech for DSLR/mirrorless has barely moved. Camera tech everywhere else has moved on massively, and the market for cameras that aren't DSLR/mirrorless has virtually disappeared.

2021 is a very different time in terms of tech than 2009.

[Matt..]

55palfers said:

Good cameras have always been expensive.

A new Canon F1n in the mid eighties was about £800 I think..

Similar high prices for FD lenses.

I think what makes it hard for me now is it's now much harder to describe a lot of these cameras as "good". Most of them have big flaws, or just aren't very technically advanced.

[Matt..]

sgrimshaw said:

Sony A7 III is £1700 and A7R III is £2200

the mark II versions of both are still "current" and come in at a lot less

A7 II is only £900 and A7R II is £1800

The A7 II is 7yrs old.
The A7R II is 6yrs old.

I wouldn't buy those as an upgrade from a 5dmk2, and not at those prices.

It's wild how expensive the A7R II still is given the age.


I really don't get why cameras are this expensive now. Maybe it's just because the market is now so tiny that it's easy to charge so much and innovate so little as it's such a captive market?

[Matt..]

techguyone said:

If the camera tech in DSLR's hasn't moved on, why change at all. Hold on until it does.

It may just be that things like the smartphone camera tech is where all the work is gonig on, that seems to be improving all the time.

It's frustrating really. I want to change because my camera is old and am concerned about failure, but also because I hike and it's big and heavy. There's just nothing that seems worth anywhere near what's being charged.

[Matt..]

Turn7 said:

Matt, is the issue more that you want to change to Mirrorless and need new glass not just an updated body ?

Genuine q.

No. I'm not concerned about changing lenses as that will need to happen with whatever I change to.

It's entirely that bodies are incredibly expensive, most have flaws (for my intended use), and most don't seem like a huge tech leap that they should be.

[Matt..]

Tony1963 said:

As above.

I think you’ve set yourself up to be disappointed. If you’re hiking, are you mainly taking landscapes? In which case a Canon R6 and a suitable lens will be much, much better than a 5D2. The 5D3 was a big step up from the 5D2 for action and low light, but it was still a heavy beast.

Maybe rent an R6 with lens for a few days, see what you think. The weight saving alone might be worth it. Or, R? RP?

You might do well to make a list of what you like about the 5D2, what you don’t like, and what you’re really looking for in a camera. Until that’s all very clear, you’re pissing in the wind.

Well the biggest problem (other than the silly pricing of cameras), is my ridiculous indecisiveness.

I want:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- Weatherproof (as much as possible. I don't want to care about using it in some rain)
- Good build quality (it will never be in a "camera bag". it will live in a normal backpack with everything else I carry)
- Very good photo quality for landscapes that I will print for the wall
- Some ability to take video

That's mostly it. I like my 5d as it's well built enough that I can throw it around, use it in the rain, drop it, knock it, and that at the time the I got it photo quality was really good.

- Canon R lenses are all big and heavy. They do no small lenses (yet).
- Older Sony A7's have awful ergonomics that are not ideal for people with bigger hands, or use of gloves

Really I'd like to stay with Canon as I've used Canon DSLRs since ~2006, but they just don't make a model that works for me. Sony is the obvious option, but the older A7's have horrible ergonomics and questionable build/weartherproofing.

I think in reality I've set myself up for wanting something that doesn't exist, and the longer I wait the more ridiculous the situation becomes

[Matt..]

Tony1963 said:

Matt,

You really need to use an R6, maybe with your 5D2 to compare the results directly. Also, I’ve just had a quick look, and the RF lenses appear to be lighter than their nearest equivalents.

Or are you just winding us up?
Are you expecting R5 performance at half the weight for £1k?

In which case, end of chat.

I don't expect that, but in some ways I do struggle to understand why that isn't the case by now. It's fairly clear that traditional camera producers are far behind with technology that's at consumer level. They've been drifting along for a long time with gradual improvements whilst the rest of the tech world has made jumps.

In reality the camera market is now miniscule. The progress is slow because it can be. There's limited pressure, and for some of these business a fairly limited need/desire to push forward.

Canon are notorious for being glacial with progress. Sony made jumps, then got slow with progress in the last few years.

You are right though, I should probably try an R6 out for an extended period.

[Matt..]

The reason I mention tech so much is primarily because its hard to justify the cost of the current crop of cameras for what they offer.

Cleary I could pick up any camera and take photos. I'm not saying I couldn't.

It's just hard to see any value in what's out there right now. That's all.

I do totally agree that I should just buy one and stop thinking about it though. But I just wish they were much more reasonably priced!

[Matt..]

Tony1963 said:

I’m 57. At the end of a long day with all my gear, I’m tired enough to start finding reasons to not bother taking photos anymore. When hiking, as with cycling, saving a couple of kilos makes sense, especially if combined with an upgrade of some sort.

When an OP says they want to save weight, I give them the benefit of the doubt and advise based on that.

Yes, for hiking weight and physical size is important. Everything adds up fast.

My 5d+lens is ~1.8kg. If I can save 500g from that it is a huge amount. A change would also give a physically smaller device that is easier to pack, and easier to carry outside of the pack.

Hiking and backpacking is like any hobby, it can easily get expensive. Going to lightweight/ultralight gear is expensive, but it certainly makes for a more enjoyable trip!

[Matt..]

Rogue86 said:

I was a combat camera photographer for 5 years so I'm well aware of how the kit weight adds up, especially when you throw in Osprey armour, weapon system, ammunition, grenades etc. The reality here is we are talking very minimal increments of weight.

500g is significant when the entire pack is 6-10kg inc consumables.
500g isn't a lot if you're wearing combat gear and other kit.

I should be able to save 500g on camera+lens as some brands have much smaller/lighter lenses. The physical size can also reduce quite significantly which makes packing it easier, and gives options for carrying it out of the pack (eg. Peak Design Clip).

My 5dmk2 + 24-105L is ~1.8kg
The Sony A7 III and 24-70 F4 is ~1.2kg

The main issue I have with the R6 is Canon have no small RF lenses. Sony have quite a few options for smaller and lighter lenses though, so they appeal.

[Matt..]

Rogue86 said:

You can have slightly lighter, slightly shorter, same or improved image quality, but you'll have to compromise massively on your expectations of price.

Yes. Which is why I started this thread because I think the pricing of cameras right now is crazy given what they offer.

The camera that probably bets fits is the Sony A7 III or the A7R IV. Primarily due to size/weight, and more compact lens options.
What I would really like is a Canon, but the reality is they don't have many RF lenses yet, and ones that fit my use case aren't in their roadmap so it could be many years until Canon is viable for me.

On the money side I don't believe I have much choice. I think the pricing is insane, but it's what it is.

[Matt..]

Derek Smith said:

You can see the problem for camera makers. They don’t sell enough for significant investment, and if they don’t make regular significant improvements, they don’t sell many cameras.

I fully agree. The camera market barely exists so there’s little reason for innovation and the companies are drifting along as long as they possibly can to milk the remnants of a dying/dead market.

What should be happening is dramatic software advancements similar to what is seen in cameras on phones. The type of advancements there would have dramatic improvements in the consumer camera market. It’s expensive to invest in the R&D though and the market is minuscule so it’s clear the companies aren’t bothering.

[Matt..]

DailyHack said:

Stick with it and upgrade your glass maybe...or maybe you have a good collection of fast wide aperture primes (apologies if you have) but these can completely freshen up your perspective on a DSLR body with a extremely fast lens!

Zooms are more useful for my needs. I don't have anything too incredible, but they work well for my needs.
- 17-40 F4 L
- 24-105 F4 L
- 50 and 85 1.8

I normally only use the 24-105 now whilst hiking.

I rarely get the camera out though as it's big and inconvenient.

Sony seem to have far smaller lenses than Canon. The Canon RF lenses are all big and heavy with nothing in the roadmap that is small. I'm sure that will change, but it could be many years away.

[Matt..]

gangzoom said:

Main improvements have been near real time image stacking to essentially eliminate the need for tripods at night, allow for back lit subjects to exposed without a fill in flash, and fake bokeh to allow for subject separation from the background despite having high f stop numbers on tiny lens/sensors.

These are good examples.

Software has moved on hugely and camera manufacturers are being left behind. The market is so small I would suspect they have little money for as much R&D as they likely should be doing.

From stats I've seen the camera market is 10% of what it was 10 years ago.

[Matt..]

Mr Whippy said:

Canon and Nikon etc will have no issues with this as they still sell products across the whole range.

And software is cheap. Imamate stacking for instance isn’t mystical... nor was video in the 5D.2 days... it’s just laziness or marketing based nerfing.

Nikon are small, they’re unlikely to be investing hugely into R&D to make any significant leaps.

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

[Matt..]

singlecoil said:

I think you'll find that like for like (i.e. full frame, same maximum aperture) Sony lenses aren't much different from Canon in size and weight

Unfortunately I don’t believe this is really true. Perhaps if you include EF lenses for Canon, but as soon as you do that you need an adapter, and that adds bulk and weight.

The Canon RF range is very small. It’s growing, but very slowly. It will take many years to establish.

[Matt..]

Simpo Two said:

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

The world moves on though. Software is a key part of technology. Like it or not it is an integral part of everything now, and bringing more software innovation to high end cameras would revolutionise the whole sector.

I also think you’re looking at it incorrectly if all you believe can be done with software is to help with deficiencies in optics and skill.

[Matt..]

C n C said:

Are you sure that you really think that Sony's lenses are "much smaller and lighter" than Canon's (they are not) or is there some other reason that you are unhappy with Canon's mirrorless (RF) offerings?

The point is that I can get smaller and lighter lenses with Sony because they exist. Yes they are not the exact replacements of what I currently have, but that's not necessarily an issue.

For example, Sony have a 24-70 F4 that is significantly lighter and smaller. This lens is 430g. The closest RF is the 24-105 F4 that is 700g.

I am not someone that needs a vast array on lenses. What I do need is the right lens (or perhaps a couple of lenses) that suit my needs.

My needs are clearly not the same as everyone, and I am well aware that chasing small weight and size savings might not seem sensible to most people.

With all this though I would still far rather have the Canon R6, but for me the bulk and weight is a problem.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.21,852.788,826...

[Matt..]

C n C said:

...

This thread seems to have generated quite a lot of interaction which is good to see. The whole innovation side in photography is definitely an interesting topic and one which can be very hard to get a perspective on. Firstly some of us (definitely me) aren't very current with newer devices so don't know all the innovations, but also for others innovation and change isn't one where we'll know what we want/expect, that's what the companies and their R&D should be coming up with.


With regards you later points CnC about physical size of the device. One factor that adds to my confusion is I'm tall with big hands, and use gloves often. One significant issue that's held me back from Sony and makes me want to go Canon is ergonomics of the camera itself. My hands don't really fit the older A7 bodies as my fingers can barely get between the grip and lens without gloves (I believe it's better in the A7R IV and newer).