Originally posted by Wheatfield The second hand market has always existed, if one wants to shoot film these days, then that is pretty much the only market they have for camera bodies.
My point being, though, folks seeking a so-called "pro-sumer" quality interchangeable lens camera won't need to choose between a brand new $1,500 DSLR or mirrorless and a brand new $500 - $1,000 phone. There are smarter choices if they're prepared to by used equipment. If the only brand new choices are those I've mentioned, I suspect a lot of folks - including many that wouldn't have done so previously - might look to the used market.
Originally posted by Wheatfield Comfort level doesn't stand up to economic forces very well.
Sure. But for the manufacturers, a camera that's priced too highly to attract enough buyers is just as problematic as one priced so low that the profit margin doesn't pay off beyond the original investment. Unless we're all going to be much better off in the future (and that doesn't seem likely), a world where serious cameras are much more expensive than today is one where very few people will buy them at all. Goodbye, DSLR
and mirrorless, if that's the case. Manufacturers have a delicate balancing act ahead of them... I'm not sure that high price and very low volume is a practical model.
Originally posted by Wheatfield One of the nice things about the camera market is that it seems to have reached a point where quality and performance levels are high enough that even the most basic units are sufficient for most needs.
Definitely... but, I wonder... how many folks here would rather own a "basic" brand new camera - and when I say basic, I'm talking about the low-to-mid-range models - instead of a three or four year old "pro-sumer" model with high-end build quality? That's a genuine question, not a loaded one. Me, I'd rather have a slightly (or even considerably) older model, lightly used, that's built for long shutter life and to take many knocks and the inclement conditions I might (rarely) face. I'd happily compromise on the very latest performance tweaks and incremental improvements in image quality in exchange for something using premium components that's likely to have a longer life and take much greater abuse than my rather careful approach is ever going to throw at it.
Originally posted by Wheatfield The downside of this is that production cycles will be longer, with feature improvements being more evolutionary than revolutionary, with the consequence that less used cameras will be hitting the market. This might make people who are dependant on product cycles to get their used gear a little less enabled. It will also push up the price of new equipment, as manufacturers still have to pay rent and maintain staff, and this has to be done on lower volume sales.
The impact on the secondary market is interesting. Whatever happens in the primary market should ripple down in time, as you point out.
My K-3 still has much life left in it. My K-3II has only had occasional use since new... so, unexpected technical faults or clumsy accidents aside, I'm good for the next few years - even more so, given I share my shooting across a bunch of much older kit too. I can happily get by with what I've got for some considerable time. If pricing of the K-3II replacement is so high that, even with estimated future reductions and occasional discounts, it's beyond what I'm comfortable with, I'll stock-pile another K-3 or K-3II in lightly-used condition. Unlike some folks on these and other forums, the vast majority of my photography doesn't
demand any more capability than my existing cameras offer...
Originally posted by Wheatfield I wonder how many folks can rely on their manufacturer of choice still making cameras in the lens mount of their choice in three years.
Indeed. If that's the case, I guess many more of us will turn to the used market...