Options
Why are digital cameras so cheap?
Soundbox
Posts: 6,247 Forum Member
✭
Last week I got a new digital compact camera after the old one failed. To be honest I did not do any price research because my local Jessops is always fairly priced and they know what they are talking about (different to the 'old' Jessops). I tried a few and settled on a Canon G16 as it fitted my hand and had decent features. I have been happy with it so far.
However in Sainsbury's I see they are selling Nikon and Fuji compact cameras - and even a bridge camera with around 15 Mega pixels for about £70. Does HD video, massive zoom range, stabilised lens and upload features. When I compare the £419 I paid for the G16 to the around £50 for the Sainsbury's range I can't work out how the difference can be so great. Are the cheap ones sold at a loss or something?
I'm not grumbling as Sainsbury's had none on display (only cards) and obviously no tech sales people to answer questions and I would never buy without at least holding it.
However in Sainsbury's I see they are selling Nikon and Fuji compact cameras - and even a bridge camera with around 15 Mega pixels for about £70. Does HD video, massive zoom range, stabilised lens and upload features. When I compare the £419 I paid for the G16 to the around £50 for the Sainsbury's range I can't work out how the difference can be so great. Are the cheap ones sold at a loss or something?
I'm not grumbling as Sainsbury's had none on display (only cards) and obviously no tech sales people to answer questions and I would never buy without at least holding it.
0
Comments
Some will be cheaper due to cheaper components, such as better lenses, quicker shutter speeds etc. Like anything in life, you get what you pay for. I tend to spend about £150-£250 on a point and shoot (I currently have a Panasonic Lumix TX-40), as I then don't end up thinking I should have bought something better later on.
Take resolution for example. A common trick is to quote the interpolated resolution rather than the true pixel count. The software that does the interpolation is clever but in the end it's still the cameras best guess. Other features such as very high ISO and extreme magnification are useless in practice. When a camera quotes an ISO of 6400 but then struggles to capture a noise free shot at ISO 400 then you know that the higher ISOs are pretty redundant.
It's not all bad news though. The rapid rise in the use of mobile phone cams has forced the camera manufacturers to look harder for ways to remain competitive. Part of the answer is in finding 3rd party manufacturers, usually in China, who are willing to invest big to buy the plant and build the facilities to make budget CCD chips, lens components, LCD panels in the sort of volumes that Nikon/Canon/Fuji/Pentax etc couldn't do individually. Outsourcing entire production is another common trick. Those little Nikon and Canon pocket cams look very similar. You can bet that under the skin they use the same design and parts as other small compacts.
Just because there are cheap cameras around it doesn't diminish the quality of high-end product. If anything, it helps you appreciate the extra performance as you step up from entry level.
This I can confirm is true, now don't get me wrong I love my Canon DSLR, but I am still learning how to use it & get the right settings for a particular photograph. However some pictures I have taken on my Galaxy S3 have been superb for web use, same goes with my partners compact camera. For me personally if I am going to a place where DSLR cameras are not allowed or if on a night out, then I will always use my mobile as it is sufficient enough for acceptable results. But if I am going away for a few days, then I will take my DSLR for pictures.
I honestly think that as companies have been making mobiles with half decent cameras, the need for the average compact camera has been reduced and so therefore compact cameras have dropped in price. Not everyone does the research into cameras, all they see is the amount of Mega Pixels & then choose to use that over a compact camera that probably has a better sensor. But as it does the job they need it to do, they just stick with what they have got. Everything from the feel of the device, right down to their own eye that cannot see things like noise, where as someone would be able to point out errors. It all falls down to choice.
It's like all other hobbies. You like it or you don't. if you do, you want better equipment.
Prices of all electrical items have come down over the years, but the price differences between the top and bottom cameras reflect the difference in quality.
Talk of a top photographer taking better pictures with a cheap camera, compared to a novice with a dslr is true, because there is much more to photography than having the best kit. If you don't know how to use it, the results will be poor.
The comparison should be the difference between what a top photographer can do between a £20 cheapie, and a top quality dslr.
Quite right. I once got into a rather heated discussion about this with a friend who spent a fortune on photographic clobber but whose pictures were just rubbish. It wasn't his nice gear that was faulty, he just didn't have the knack of spotting a good bit of natural lighting etc. His pictures lacked any art whatsoever.
This reminds me of the time Jackie Stewart hustled a Mini Cooper around a track far quicker than Richard Hammond in a powerful Maserati. It's all about technique and skill.
IMO the reason digital cameras are so cheap (compared to a similar-specced 'proper' camera) is that there are no precision moving parts. The CCD sensor is a mass-produced item probably costing a dollar a throw, and the rest of the guts are pennies. The lens is the biggest item, and even these are much cheaper than they were at one time.
Probably because digital cameras have been on sale for years now. The longer technology has been around, the cheaper it gets. There must be hardly anyone who uses the old style cameras these days. But yeah, compact digital camera technology has been around long enough for the price to be extremely affordable.
Funny you should say that. In 2010 I snagged a near new Nikon F3. For years they were £300 to £400 USED and then with the cost of used gear falling I saw it for sale at £100 with case and a few accessories. I was over the moon and scanned film results are great. I use my digital compact for my trips to London and the like where the movie recording and zoom lens are a real boon.
A digital file will last forever, unlike a piece of paper. I'm talking about when a piece of paper is handled as many times as the file is viewed.
So they are now made in England?
I never knew that!
Unless you take photography a little more seriously as a hobby.
A phone camera will never match a good quality dedicated camera.
Quite the opposite. Every computer savvy person will tell you that the CD/DVD disc, flash drives, hard drives etc all have a shelf life, and can't be trusted 100%, hence the importance of backing up files.
The paper print is just one copy of a negative, and we don't yet know how long properly stored negatives last because 35mm film has only been around for 80-odd years, with plates being older still and still survive.
For archiving, film is a far more stable media than any electronic file.
Except honey maybe.
Of course not but for everyday pictures or at family get togethers, parties a phone will now suffice when a few years ago everyone had their cameras.
Again, it depends on the importance you place on the quality of the images.
You mean assembled by them, machinery does the rest.
In some circumstances (e.g. low light, moving object, etc) a DSLR with a decent lens easily beat a mediocre camera phone by a huge margin, even if the DSLR is in the hands of a monkey and the camera phone is in the hands of David Bailey. In easier circumstances, any half-decent modern camera can deliver 6x4s that would make almost anyone happy.
Cheaper cameras tend to struggle with difficult shots. The cheapest "HD" video cameras aren't really HD - with blurring, aliasing, or even both.
Cheers,
David.