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.

[Alt Shoo]

@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.

[Ilkka Nissila]

8 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

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.

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

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. 

[Ilkka Nissila]

8 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

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.

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.

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

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)

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.  

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

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. 

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.

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

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?

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).

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

If you feel the camera companies are ripping people off, start your own company and make products more affordable if you can.

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.

[MrSMW]

Do I think large camera companies are out of touch?

Dunno/maybe…

I think most companies and people are full stop. Or at least reactive rather than proactive ie, really only act when they need to rather than choose to.

Are camera companies specifically focused on the higher end of the market and have prices for such kit gone up?

Yes I think so. Mainly thank phones and social media for that ‘gift’.

Does any of it have any bearing on me?

Nope, not really…

As a business user, the cost is not that big a deal to me and if my annual tool budget cost of my turnover goes from 5 to 6%, it’s no big deal.

Until fairly recently, for my specific use case, I did buy and sell far more than I would have liked and ‘suffered’ the mockery and sometimes outright abuse of various so called colleagues, in that regard (not that I really cared or it made any difference and I am still here whilst most of them are not so…) partly out of need, partly out of want.

In recent times though, it’s come down to pure want that is the deciding factor.

Last year for sure was pure want over need.

This year I am not making a single significant change other than I’ve moved a few pieces around, bought a new relatively cheap lens last year and will be picking up a new drone this Spring as my 5 year old one flies a bit wonky after several, err…‘incidents’.

I still muse over stuff from time to time and there’s a couple of things I might jump on if they ever appear but as those things do not currently exist as anything but pure speculation at best, I’m not that bothered.

[kye]

5 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

@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.

Good points.

The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles.  The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention.

Without us, the whole thing falls flat.

I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images.
I will be the first to admit I did this.  I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer.  The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images.

Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again.  These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc.  They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes.

My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place.  I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!