Originally posted by Wheatfield ...
The democratization of photography being something for the masses isn't ending, people will always have cell phones with ever increasingly sophisticated built in cameras, but going forward, if you want real camera gear, it is going to cost real money.
It depends on what you mean by "real money". All of the major mirrorless manufacturers offer affordable entry-level options, which I define as well under $1,000 (U.S.) for APS-C or well under $2,000 for full frame. Most of these are new or recent introductions. Let's look at some examples:
- Fujifilm just introduced the new and very capable XE-4 at a price of $850.
- Sony just introduced the very compact full-frame A7c, at a price of $1,800.
- Canon has a couple of full-frame mirrorless cameras, the RP and the R, that retail for $1,000 and $1,800 respectively.
- Nikon recently introduced the full frame Z-5 (with dual card slots, IBIS, and weather sealing) at a price of $1,300. They also offer the APS-C Z-50 at a price of $750.
Companies like Sony and Fuji are NOT just focusing on the high end. Moreover, third-party manufacturers such as Tamron have really stepped up their game, offering some good lenses at affordable prices, and promising more to come, in a wider variety of mounts.
One could easily argue that from the perspective of price-to-performance there has never been a better time to buy a new camera. My first digital camera was the *ist-D, for which I paid $1,250 (body only), and which had 6 megapixels, poor autofocus, and no shake reduction. At that price it was easily affordable--particularly in comparison with most of my other hobbies--but from a value perspective the current situation is rather incredible. Recent and future offerings may not be affordable for folks who are poor, but they are well within the reach of middle-class consumers.
Can these super good values continue? Probably not at these levels, but I expect that the surviving companies (such as Canon and Sony and maybe others) will continue to offer affordable options as a means of luring people into their systems. Entry-level gear plays an important strategic role in marketing. Such gear may not add directly to the bottom line, but it is important as a means of cultivating a base of users, SOME of whom will go on to buy more expensive gear. Of course most people who dabble in Canon or Sony will not become long-term customers who buy a lot of gear, but it is necessary to cast a wide net to create that loyal base of customers who will continue to spend. Dropping entry level gear does not strike me as a workable long-term strategy. Having said that, success in the long term relies on more than simply attracting users with low entry-level prices. While offering entry-level gear may be a necessary condition for success it is clearly not a sufficient condition.
Dan