Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,610 visits to this link)
17,218 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.5m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 423k views
-
- 0 replies
- 758 views
-
- 700 replies
- 284.1k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.7m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 706.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 173 views
-
- 12 replies
- 224 views
-
- 52 replies
- 4.5k views
-
- 548 replies
- 247.3k views
-
- 22 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 87 replies
- 63k views
-
- 1 reply
- 208 views
-
- 7 replies
- 462 views
-
- 24 replies
- 885 views
-
- 2 replies
- 262 views
-
- 10 replies
- 6.2k views
-
- 9 replies
- 640 views
-
- 1 reply
- 312 views
-
- 5 replies
- 6.3k views
-
- 55 replies
- 26.8k views
-
- 34 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 75 replies
- 50.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 433 views
-
- 336 replies
- 121.5k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 7 replies
- 10.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 413 views
-
- 26 replies
- 10.9k views
-
- 465 replies
- 118.5k views
-
- 104 replies
- 54.4k views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 92 replies
- 71.9k views
-
- 21 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 140 replies
- 40k views
-
- 7 replies
- 998 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 116 replies
- 55.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 2.9k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts350.9k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Yes, but the point is that they are high. People in the US make more per capita and because of our broken system, we also need to spend more in order to receive health care, have a place to live, buy food, etc. You are severely delusional about the amount of disposable income of the average consumer in the US. Average rent in the US is about $1,800. That's more than half of the post-tax income of most people and with the rest, they need to buy groceries (average about $500/month/person), transit (varies wildly, but you probably need a car unless living in a bigger city where your rent will be higher), health care (insurance ain't cheap), and... you're now out of money. This is also why the average US citizen is $63,000 in debt. I've been fortunate enough to make a better-than median income and I was able to pay off my house years ago. That's why I can afford more fun stuff now. A wall of text with no paragraph breaks (seriously, that was barely readable, break it up man) does not fix those problems. The point is that for most US residents, including most of my friends/acquaintances, they never lived in a tower of gold - they lived and live paycheck to paycheck, just hoping that they don't get sick and ruined financially. 15 years ago? Maybe not. 6 years ago? Yes, in almost every meaningful way. Let's compare the results per dollar for an EOS R5 (used price around $1,800) and an EOS R5 Mark II (used price around $3,600). Reductive and stupid. To start a new company from scratch, you'd need to burn a shitload of investor money and be able to make no profits for several years before the first model comes to market - assuming that the major players don't lock you out by buying all the inventory from your suppliers, etc. The profit margin on camera gear is big. This is also why Black Magic, Kinefinity, Z-Cam, and a few others have been shaking up the industry for a while - offering a bigger feature set for less money and driving the bigger manufacturers to offer more/better features in their cameras to stay competitive. -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
Maybe the problem here is more about the targeted advertising, social media sites and generally the web showing ads based on the data that they've collected on your interests, basically always suggesting something you might be interested in buying, than the products themselves? Before the internet, and even in the early years of the web, people were shown generic ads for things such as diapers, books, cleaning equipment, clothes, cars, etc. rather than ads targeted to very niche users, to each user their own portfolio of potential wants and desires. In the past we would be annoyed by ads but ignore them because they were largely not relevant to us most of the time. Today the ads are so precisely targeted that they're harder to ignore. I personally think this data collection and targeted advertisement should be made illegal because it leads to people buying things they don't need and can't afford, and a sense of misery if they don't buy. Young people growing up with the smartphone and social media have increased rates of mental problems. Generally, commercial interests of big companies seem to override the needs of regular people in the decisions made by politicians, leading to a society where people are less happy than before, even though we have more "things" than we had before. -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
Health care costs in the US are high because of a private insurance-based system (where a large part of the money goes to the insurance company which doesn't actually do anything to improve your health). Health care costs in Europe are about one half of the US costs per person. In my country, large incomes from salaries are taxed heavily to provide free education and low-cost health care to everyone. This also means smaller income differences between people than in the US and as a result there is not as much of market for extremely expensive houses etc. In the US in many highly populated regions, such as NYC, or LA, the costs of housing are very high because many people with a lot of money want to live there. In my country, when people are not doing as well economically, housing prices go down even in the most desired regions, compensating to some extent for the loss in purchasing power. In the US, many people are so rich that they can afford to pay anything the market asks for, and this results in a situation where the "ordinary person" can't afford to live in those areas (which are often the most job-rich as well). This has nothing at all to do with decisions made by the camera companies. When smartphones replaced cameras in the hands of the majority, camera companies lost most of their income and sales volume, and they have had to refocus on the higher-end market since the low-end market disappeared to a large part. The reason those entry-level cameras were so inexpensive 10-15 years ago was because of orders of magnitude greater sales volumes. In addition, the customer wants ever higher specs and better performance, and as sensor resolution has increased, the lenses need to be optically better corrected to avoid showing obvious defects or limitations in image quality when the image is viewed using those high-resolution sensors and displays. This makes the lenses more expensive as the higher quality is more difficult to manufacture. Energy prices have gone up because of wars and lens manufacturing is very energy-intensive. The AI boom has increased the demand for semiconductors and thus the camera companies need to pay more to compete for access to the production capacity for chips. Customers now want cameras designed for video as well as stills, again this means the manufacturers have had to develop expensive processors and sensors to achieve the fast readout and high resolution, and lenses need to focus silently and be corrected for focus breathing and parfocality. Customers will, of course, at the end, have to pay for this development and increased manufacturing costs. Camera companies are not especially profitable today. There is not much that they can do about that. You can always get back to using older equipment as these are available for a fraction of their cost when new. Compare the results you get for dollar using a modern camera with one made 15 years ago, do you still think the new items cost more to achieve the same results? They do not. For similar capabilities that were sold 1-2 decades ago, you can get that equipment really cheaply today. If you feel the camera companies are ripping people off, start your own company and make products more affordable if you can. To make life more affordable for the ordinary person in the US, it would be far easier to make a publicly funded health care system and tax the billionaires, stop funding the military-industrial complex, fire the corrupt government, stop building golden ballrooms, and so on. These things are why life is appearing unaffordable to many people in the US. The rest of the world is used to things like cameras being expensive and don't complain so much since the fall hasn't been from a high tower made of gold and marble. -
@kye Thanks for the thoughtful take, two solid points. On the first one: I don’t really have emotional attachment to camera bodies anymore. They’re just tools that either help me get the shot or get in the way. Lenses are the emotional part for me (the rendering, the character, the way they feel when I look through them), but the body is basically a computer with a mount and some buttons. That said, ergonomics and UI matter hugely. If I’m constantly fighting menus, fumbling controls under pressure, or the grip feels wrong after 20 minutes, my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set. I’ve shot with cameras that technically should be fine but never clicked with my hands or brain. The day always feels harder and the results flatter. So if the C50’s cine OS with shutter angle, proper exposure tools and XLR top handle let me stay in flow instead of menu-diving or second-guessing, that’s worth a lot more than specs on paper. Reliability is primal too. A body that fails on set (AF hunting in low light, overheating mid-interview, battery dying unexpectedly, corrupted file, flicker issues, or weird grading artifacts) is a disaster, especially solo. I’ve had shoots go sideways because of exactly that. So even if a camera is technically capable, if it can’t be trusted in the field for hours, it’s not a tool, it’s a liability. On stabilization: I’m with you. I’m not chasing perfectly locked-down gimbal shots or overcooked EIS. I actually like natural camera movement, it feels alive and human. The stuff that kills the vibe for me is the micro-jitters and tiny breathing shakes on small-body cameras. Those little floating tremors look nervous and amateurish. Big intentional camera motion (shoulder rig sway, handheld energy) can be beautiful and add to the scene, but those small unintentional artifacts from inadequate stabilization are just distracting. That’s why Gyroflow plus shooting with EIS off (or Standard only when needed) feels like the sweet spot. I get to keep the organic handheld character I like, but I can surgically remove the annoying micro-shake in post without turning everything into a locked-down special effect. If a shot is so dynamic that even that isn’t enough, I’ll reach for a gimbal or shoulder rig anyway. But for 80 to 90 percent of the lifestyle, interview and observational stuff I’m shooting, I’ll be on sticks with handheld B-roll. Appreciate the nudge. It’s always good to be reminded that mood, flow and reliability matter more than specs. -
@kye I don’t disagree with the basic market argument, and I’m not suggesting cameras are a necessity or a right. What I was pointing to is less about entitlement and more about cultural tone. Markets can function correctly and still feel disconnected from the lived reality of a lot of people right now. Also i’m not arguing companies shouldn’t sell high end gear, only questioning whether the pace and intensity of constant releases and marketing still feels aligned with the broader moment we’re in. This is an observation about fatigue and context, not about price controls or obligations.
-
