[Winder]

Actually cameras, especially ILCs, are Veblen goods for a large percentage of buyers. Except for a few actual professionals, most "big cameras" and "big lens" are ego purchases so the buyer can show off their wealth.

Just because a good is a luxury item for the average person doesn't make it a Veblen Good. Velben Goods are specific goods/brands within a larger group of goods. For a large percentage of the global population, cars are a luxury item, but cars are not Velben goods. Rolls-Royce is an example of a Velben good within the larger group of goods (cars).

---

Last edited by Winder; 04-28-2018 at 10:16 AM.

[normhead]

Are we getting all semantical here?

[MarkJerling]

Actually cameras, especially ILCs, are Veblen goods for a large percentage of buyers. Except for a few actual professionals, most "big cameras" and "big lens" are ego purchases so the buyer can show off their wealth.

I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding what a Velben goods item is. A bottle of wine is not a Velben good, but a Domaine de la Romanee-Conti Romanee-Conti Grand Cru 1990 at $21,216 is. A handbag is not a Velben good but a Hermès white Himalaya crocodile diamond Birkin bag for $379,261 is.

[MarkJerling]

Are we getting all semantical here?

Very!

[photoptimist]

I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding what a Velben goods item is. A bottle of wine is not a Velben good, but a Domaine de la Romanee-Conti Romanee-Conti Grand Cru 1990 at $21,216 is. A handbag is not a Velben good but a Hermès white Himalaya crocodile diamond Birkin bag for $379,261 is.

A Veblen good is simply one where it's high price actually increases demand rather than suppresses it. It may be true that for most categories of products, only a subset of "luxury" brands are Veblen while the rest of the category of normal goods. But in some cases (e.g. business jets), the entire category is a Veblen luxury.

Through out history there have been "expensive" products that consumers sought and bought because they were expensive and were used to signal social status. The "keeping up with the Joneses" phenomenon is about the Veblen goods which are prized because they are costly, not cheap. Note that there probably was a time when all ladies handbags were Veblen goods in the sense that serfs & peasants could not afford such frippery and only ladies of means had them.

[RGlasel]

It's easy to miss the core argument in the forest of semantic arguments; as I recall someone made the argument here that an increase in the average price of MILCs is an indication of increased demand for MILCs. The only way that argument holds any water is if a mirrorless camera costing more than a thousand dollars is no different than a pound of generic rice sold in an open market. For the armchair philosophers keeping score at home, that's a reductio ad absurdum argurment, not a semantic argument. Besides, we have a perfectly good indicator of demand for MILCs, a line in CIPA reports since 2012. As far as I know there has never been a global crop failure for MILCs, so if the average price goes up, it is because buyers are buying more expensive cameras, not because they are bidding up the price in the face of scarcity.

You Tube

You Tube

[MarkJerling]

But in some cases (e.g. business jets), the entire category is a Veblen luxury.

Actually, a business jet is a poor example in that business jet pricing is quite competitive, believe it or not. Take, for example, a Boeing Business Jet: List price is $57 million (plus $20-25 million for interior). The BBJ is, of course, a 737-700 and a 737-700 retails for somewhere between $51.5 million and $87 million, depending on factors like engine choice, seating configuration and fit-out. So, there's no exorbitant mark-up on the BBJ's price.

A Veblen goods item would be one where an increase in price would result in higher sales. Or, an item where the price that holds no/little relationship with the cost to produce the item.

Something like a Lamborghini Aventador would be a good example: It sells for just over $400,000 but costs probably less than 25% of that to produce.

[MarkJerling]

It's easy to miss the core argument in the forest of semantic arguments; as I recall someone made the argument here that an increase in the average price of MILCs is an indication of increased demand for MILCs. The only way that argument holds any water is if a mirrorless camera costing more than a thousand dollars is no different than a pound of generic rice sold in an open market. For the armchair philosophers keeping score at home, that's a reductio ad absurdum argurment, not a semantic argument. Besides, we have a perfectly good indicator of demand for MILCs, a line in CIPA reports since 2012. As far as I know there has never been a global crop failure for MILCs, so if the average price goes up, it is because buyers are buying more expensive cameras, not because they are bidding up the price in the face of scarcity.


Argument Clinic - YouTube

Very well said!

[Rondec]

I guess I don't understand economic theory, but my perception as to pricing of new cameras is that it is relatively arbitrary. Sony priced the A9 at 4200 dollars because they could and because at that price it is still 2000 dollars cheaper than the Nikon D5. Does it cost anywhere near 4200 dollars to produce? Probably not, although there is a fair amount of R and D that went into it. But in pricing it over 4000, they are basically saying that they would rather make more money per camera on fewer cameras sold. But I don't think it really has much to do with supply and demand or, with people flaunting their wealth. It just has to do with Sony making specific calculations about their cameras and pricing them based on where they think they fall in the market and how much profit per camera body they want to make.

My perception is actually that the A9 isn't selling terribly well, but that it has had nice buzz around it. Internet buzz certainly makes things seem more popular than maybe they actually are.

[str8talk83]

I guess I don't understand economic theory, but my perception as to pricing of new cameras is that it is relatively arbitrary. Sony priced the A9 at 4200 dollars because they could and because at that price it is still 2000 dollars cheaper than the Nikon D5. Does it cost anywhere near 4200 dollars to produce? Probably not, although there is a fair amount of R and D that went into it. But in pricing it over 4000, they are basically saying that they would rather make more money per camera on fewer cameras sold. But I don't think it really has much to do with supply and demand or, with people flaunting their wealth. It just has to do with Sony making specific calculations about their cameras and pricing them based on where they think they fall in the market and how much profit per camera body they want to make.

My perception is actually that the A9 isn't selling terribly well, but that it has had nice buzz around it. Internet buzz certainly makes things seem more popular than maybe they actually are.

I think that the a9 struggled because of the lack of actual sports lenses and the high cost. It couldn't attract the sports and wildlife shooters (in general) because of the lack of glass. The people already invested in the system ended up waiting and picked up an a7r III or the a7III. I follow another forum as a Sony shooter and notice a trend of people picking up the a9 for the speed and then selling it later to get one of the other models, since they don't "need" the speed. The used price of the a9 on forums is around $3500 right now. I feel that it is worth that, given the capabilities.

[beholder3]

Updated graphics now including March 2018 data:

[Pål Jensen]

So the DSLR is facing marked saturation and mirrorless probably going to face the same soon.

[Zygonyx]

Still no parity yet....

[RGlasel]

So the DSLR is facing marked saturation and mirrorless probably going to face the same soon.

Based on this graph, the market for both types of interchangeable lens camera has been saturated since 2013. Mirrorless peaked in time for Christmas 2012, DSLRs in June 2012 and neither market has shown real potential for growth since then. Mirrorless just didn't have as far to fall. The differences between these two types of camera aren't enough to make the market for one type to prosper at the expense of the other type. On a global scale, standalone cameras are a specialty product and unless the mass consumer market develops a perceived need to have a camera with interchangeable lenses, that situation will never change. We are drowning in an ocean of digital photographs, at some point most people will even quit taking pictures with their smartphones.

[monochrome]

A Veblen good is simply one where it's high price actually increases demand rather than suppresses it. It may be true that for most categories of products, only a subset of "luxury" brands are Veblen while the rest of the category of normal goods. But in some cases (e.g. business jets), the entire category is a Veblen luxury.

Through out history there have been "expensive" products that consumers sought and bought because they were expensive and were used to signal social status. The "keeping up with the Joneses" phenomenon is about the Veblen goods which are prized because they are costly, not cheap. Note that there probably was a time when all ladies handbags were Veblen goods in the sense that serfs & peasants could not afford such frippery and only ladies of means had them.

I read today that Ferrari has pre-sold its entire planned production through 2019.

Yet I can take my pick of 116 Corvettes, drive off the lot, within 15 miles of my home.