Seriously... I have a D7200. Just bought a Sigma Art 1.8 18-35 for 800 euro's. I'm look towards the new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 di vc usd g2 for 1600. And I want to sell my D7200 in favor of a D500, which costs 2000 dollars.

And this is all semi-pro / subtop brands. Why is photography so expensive? Is it branding?

I mean.. you can't possibly argue that it is still difficult to make these lenses or technology... DSLRs of good quality (and lenses) have been around for ages now.

"DSLRs of good quality" is a moving target. I have been an avid amateur photographer decades ago and recently decided to revisit my old hobby, only to learn it's a different landscape now. Autofocusing and image stabilization were barely heard of back then. Matrix resolution is now so high it outperforms most but the best lenses. There are advancements in suppressing color noise. Good optics was always expensive, there isn't a way to cut that cost by much, but now you also need a smooth and fast miniature motor in your lens.

I went with slightly outdated technology, purchased a used 7D for $300 and a few less expensive used lenses, one of them Canon 75-300 f/4 for $100.

Quote from: seva1385 on Sat, 24 March 2018, 21:34:48

"DSLRs of good quality" is a moving target. I have been an avid amateur photographer decades ago and recently decided to revisit my old hobby, only to learn it's a different landscape now. Autofocusing and image stabilization were barely heard of back then. Matrix resolution is now so high it outperforms most but the best lenses. There are advancements in suppressing color noise. Good optics was always expensive, there isn't a way to cut that cost by much, but now you also need a smooth and fast miniature motor in your lens.

I went with slightly outdated technology, purchased a used 7D for $300 and a few less expensive used lenses, one of them Canon 75-300 f/4 for $100.

The problem is, for me autofocus and image stabilization are very important, because I also like to do sports photography. Unfortunately, you need fast glass and a great body for that. You cannot compromise when you need to make photos quickly.

I guess the more specifications you require the more costy it becomes, sports photography is very expenisve in general I believe.

Quote from: Signature on Sun, 25 March 2018, 08:11:24

I guess the more specifications you require the more costy it becomes, sports photography is very expenisve in general I believe.

How much did your setup for spying on good looking females from Long Distances Cost.. ??

Show Image

I always keep the *****es on a leash, so no need

Quote from: Signature on Sun, 25 March 2018, 08:11:24

I guess the more specifications you require the more costy it becomes, sports photography is very expenisve in general I believe.

How much did your setup for spying on good looking females from Long Distances Cost.. ??

Show Image

I find a rifle scope is best for these situations.

Jk! This is a terrible approach which I say in dark jest, I do not condone using a gun or otherwise to spy on ladies.

Without knowing anything about photography, I'd say it's a combination of low volume, bleeding edge, complex mechanical/electrical/optical elements in small and sexy form factors. Also the market etc., people apparently pay these prices to support these premiums.

Quote from: Signature on Sun, 25 March 2018, 08:11:24

I guess the more specifications you require the more costy it becomes, sports photography is very expenisve in general I believe.

How much did your setup for spying on good looking females from Long Distances Cost.. ??

Show Image

2000 for the body + 1600 for the 70-200 lens (effectively 105-300 on a crop sensor).

So 3600... But I also have a 18-35 lens which costs 800. And then a 300 tripod. THIS HOBBY NEVER ENDS

Quote from: Leslieann on Wed, 28 March 2018, 22:13:16

It's specs race in a low volume market.
And now they are trying to outrun cell phones at the low end while trying to steer clear of the professional and video market which is dropping in price.

Phone manufacturers (particularly Apple) are trying to turn DSLRs (photography in general) into a commodity, similar to what Amazon did with the phenomenon "book".

I'm really afraid that in the future people do not understand what a "photographer" does, and the gear and the art will disappear coz "check my 50000 megapixel Iphone Y and check the bokeh-algorithm). Ugh...

I wouldn't worry too much about the photographers, there is a lot more to taking a good picture than the camera or pixels. A good photographer with the right stuff can get good pictures with a garbage cell phone while an amateur could take all the equipment in the world and turn out crap. There is a skill and an art to it that technology simply cannot replace, at least not any time soon and if it does, humans will just declare that standard dead and invent some new standard the machine can't do.

Look at man made diamonds, better than mined ones, so DeBeers set out to make them less cool. The same would happen with photography except that it would be spontaneous rather than a marketing campaign.

Quote from: iLLucionist on Fri, 30 March 2018, 02:54:08

Quote from: Leslieann on Wed, 28 March 2018, 22:13:16

It's specs race in a low volume market.
And now they are trying to outrun cell phones at the low end while trying to steer clear of the professional and video market which is dropping in price.

Phone manufacturers (particularly Apple) are trying to turn DSLRs (photography in general) into a commodity, similar to what Amazon did with the phenomenon "book".

I'm really afraid that in the future people do not understand what a "photographer" does, and the gear and the art will disappear coz "check my 50000 megapixel Iphone Y and check the bokeh-algorithm). Ugh...

I wouldn't worry too much about the photographers, there is a lot more to taking a good picture than the camera or pixels. A good photographer with the right stuff can get good pictures with a garbage cell phone while an amateur could take all the equipment in the world and turn out crap. There is a skill and an art to it that technology simply cannot replace, at least not any time soon and if it does, humans will just declare that standard dead and invent some new standard the machine can't do.

Look at man made diamonds, better than mined ones, so DeBeers set out to make them less cool. The same would happen with photography except that it would be spontaneous rather than a marketing campaign.

A zillion selfies and cat pics will never come close to the epic epicness of space photography and other science related photo work

^ a buddy of mine is really into telescopes and astro photography.. its probably a $10k starting point to get something kinda cool. 

he hangs out on a site called 'cloudynights' which is where all the telescope nerds trade their wares.