Are camera companies out of touch with the current financial reality?

[Alt Shoo]

Lately I’ve been thinking about how fast new cameras and lenses come out, and it made me wonder, do these companies actually realize a large portion of the world (especially here in the U.S.) is feeling some real financial strain right now?

Between rising living costs, inflation still lingering in daily budgets, and shoppers saying they plan to cut spending because things are less affordable, people in many income brackets are tightening their belts rather than splurging.

At the same time, camera gear prices keep going up, with manufacturers leaning heavily into higher end products and even having to increase prices due to tariffs and costs and used gear demand is surging, which suggests many photographers are turning away from new purchases and toward more affordable options.

Meanwhile the constant cycle of marketing, hype, and new products can get overwhelming. It starts to feel less like “new tech we need” and more like noise pushing us to buy things even if budgets are tight.

I’m curious, do you think camera companies are aware of this, or does it not matter to them because their target audience is high end buyers? And has the constant churn of new gear given you a kind of “second hand fatigue” not necessarily because you want nothing new, but because it feels relentless and disconnected from what most people can realistically afford?

[eatstoomuchjam]

I think there are a few things at play.

We're in a place where cameras from 2019 (and maybe a bit earlier) are still totally great and usable.  The Z-Cam E2-F6 was released in 2019.  The EOS R5 was released in 2020.  The A7s III was also released in 2020, as was the OG Red Komodo.   You can go pick up any of those cameras right now and make great-looking content with more than enough resolution/quality to be played and look good in any theater.

Because of that, there's not a huge reason for everybody to upgrade.  If I look at upgrading my R5 to the R5 II, I see nothing that would be worth me spending $1500-2000 for it (assuming I sold for standard used price and bought for standard used price).  What am I getting?  A bit less overheating, slightly better DR, and more 8K frame rates that I won't use a lot?  For $2,000?  🤷‍♂️

Assuming that most enthusiasts have purchased a new camera within the last 5-6 years, they have a camera that's good enough to produce professional results, either in still photos or video.  I can sort of see what manufacturers would focus on high-end gear with big margin instead of chasing a share of the shrinking low/mid-range market.

But!  The good news is that if you're in the category of a person who bought a decent camera in the last 5 years, there's no need to get stressed by the hype around new models.  Watch people going for corporate gigs and the like these days and you're apt to see most of them carrying a 5-year old FX3 or FX6.

[Ilkka Nissila]

9 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

Lately I’ve been thinking about how fast new cameras and lenses come out, and it made me wonder, do these companies actually realize a large portion of the world (especially here in the U.S.) is feeling some real financial strain right now?

Between rising living costs, inflation still lingering in daily budgets, and shoppers saying they plan to cut spending because things are less affordable, people in many income brackets are tightening their belts rather than splurging.

At the same time, camera gear prices keep going up, with manufacturers leaning heavily into higher end products and even having to increase prices due to tariffs and costs and used gear demand is surging, which suggests many photographers are turning away from new purchases and toward more affordable options.

Meanwhile the constant cycle of marketing, hype, and new products can get overwhelming. It starts to feel less like “new tech we need” and more like noise pushing us to buy things even if budgets are tight.

I’m curious, do you think camera companies are aware of this, or does it not matter to them because their target audience is high end buyers? And has the constant churn of new gear given you a kind of “second hand fatigue” not necessarily because you want nothing new, but because it feels relentless and disconnected from what most people can realistically afford?

US has the third highest median wages (PPP) of all countries in the world (only Luxembourg and Switzerland are ahead in this metric). I think it's remarkable that Americans would complain about prices when those prices are much less within reach to people living in almost all other countries in the world, and even make it a point how supposedly THEY are feeling strained. 

That said, camera and lens prices in the US have increased because the US government has increased/created tariffs which the customers have to, in the end, pay in the form of increased prices. Yes, manufacturers also feel this in reduced sales and because of this many of them probably have gone into the red (making a loss), but there is not much they can do apart from concentrating on other parts of the worldwide market and trying to make up for the reduced US sales by trying to sell products elsewhere. 

The tariffs affect low and middle classes more than the upper class because they are flat taxes without progression. The US government is using the tariffs to increase relative taxation of the majority of the population to fund tax breaks to billionaires. This is not the camera companies' fault. It's the people who voted in the latest elections who selected these politicians into office.

 

If you have working cameras and lenses, keep using them until they stop working, then have them repaired, until there are no more parts and the repairs are unsuccessful, and only then consider the purchase of new equipment. Now, of course, marketing will try to get you to buy new stuff. Stop following internet gear forums and concentrate on your work and art. 

 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

US has the third highest median wages (PPP) of all countries in the world (only Luxembourg and Switzerland are ahead in this metric).

Depending on which source, we're the third, fifth, or sixth highest.  But that also comes with highest prices for a lot of things including health care.  My after-insurance cost for a dental check-up, two cavities filled, and a crown was over $2,000.  To have a skilled laborer (like a plumber or electrician) come to your house will usually cost $300+ for all but the most basic things.

2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

That said, camera and lens prices in the US have increased because the US government has increased/created tariffs which the customers have to, in the end, pay in the form of increased prices.

The trend started before the current president and is applicable to every country.  In general, fewer cameras are being released in the $2,000 range than are released in the $3000+ range - and far fewer still under $1,000.  Even if the median salary is $40,000 (according to the SSA), after state+federal taxes, that'll come to under $3,000/month - barely enough to cover rent, food, and insurance.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

 

 

[Alt Shoo]

I think I may not have explained myself clearly, so I want to reset what I was actually getting at.

This isn’t about whether people need new cameras, or whether older cameras are still capable. I agree they are. It’s also not about blaming any one company or getting political. What I’m really reacting to is the disconnect in tone.

Right now, a lot of people are dealing with very real financial pressure in day to day life. Food, housing, healthcare, basic stability. Against that backdrop, the pace and intensity of constant product releases and marketing across the camera industry (and other industries) feels a bit detached from how many people are actually living.

I’m not saying companies should stop innovating, and I’m not saying people are wrong for buying new gear if they can afford it. I’m just questioning whether the relentless “next thing, next thing, next thing” approach still matches the moment we’re in.

Even for those of us who aren’t buying, it can create a kind of fatigue just being surrounded by it, especially when most modern cameras are already more than capable for professional work. So the question I was trying to raise is less “should anyone upgrade?” and more “does this constant push still make sense culturally and economically right now?” That’s all I was aiming to explore.

[kye]

4 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

I think I may not have explained myself clearly, so I want to reset what I was actually getting at.

This isn’t about whether people need new cameras, or whether older cameras are still capable. I agree they are. It’s also not about blaming any one company or getting political. What I’m really reacting to is the disconnect in tone.

Right now, a lot of people are dealing with very real financial pressure in day to day life. Food, housing, healthcare, basic stability. Against that backdrop, the pace and intensity of constant product releases and marketing across the camera industry (and other industries) feels a bit detached from how many people are actually living.

I’m not saying companies should stop innovating, and I’m not saying people are wrong for buying new gear if they can afford it. I’m just questioning whether the relentless “next thing, next thing, next thing” approach still matches the moment we’re in.

Even for those of us who aren’t buying, it can create a kind of fatigue just being surrounded by it, especially when most modern cameras are already more than capable for professional work. So the question I was trying to raise is less “should anyone upgrade?” and more “does this constant push still make sense culturally and economically right now?” That’s all I was aiming to explore.

I think you've been looking at the camera industry too long.

We operate in a marketplace where people offer goods and services and if people want to purchase them they do, and if not, they don't.  There are reasons why Governments might incentivise or subsidise various industries or products or behaviours, but I don't think any of these apply to cameras.  The only other situation that is an exception is if something starts to become a necessity, like clean water or reliable electricity supply, and more recently now internet access is getting into this territory.  When this happens then efforts might need to be made to ensure that these things are accessible.

I very much doubt anyone is arguing that high-end mirrorless cameras are a human right, in which case they should just be traded like all goods, where they're subject to the laws of demand and supply.

You can't get your house painted for $50 because paint and labour costs more than that.  You can't buy a car for $9 because no-one has worked out how to make them for anything remotely like that price.  You can't buy a super-car for $10000 because the market has valued them significantly above that.