My first real camera, a Canon FTb with a 50mm f1.4 lens cost me 4 to 5 weeks
of wages in 1970.  A much better all automatic with better optics and no
need for a motor drive DSLR is less than that now, even considering the
level of taxes I pay.  In 1970, I could not afford or justify the price of
Canon lenses, 35 years later with poorer eyesight, I can see the difference
in my daylight lab (my computer) between a good and a bad lens and justify
the added costs.

In the same light, a Chevy Impala was less than $3000 in 1970, is it worth
10 times more these days?

I would say it's better now than it was then.

Jean

See any competition for the Canon 1Ds Mark-II? It sits pretty lonely at
16.7MP with a full-frame sensor.

The ID Mark-II? Maybe, with the D2X. But thats still just two of them
there.

Even at the entry level, there are only Canon, Nikon, Pentax and
Minolta with one model each.

Doesn't seem like too much competition up there so no price wars and no
price cuts. Compare that to the P&S digicam market where the prices
seem to be headed southwards all the time with a dozen manufacturers
with a dozen models being put out by each.

Yes, costs of components is higher than a film equivalent given the
additional electronics that go into a high-end dSLR and the current low
volumes.

- Siddhartha

sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a lot more
for a FF sensor.

I think a bunch of things contribute to the higher costs. In a
nutshell, I think a fair number of people are willing to buy the
top-end stuff.

So why is anyone buying these things?
Contributing factors:
Digital workflow saves money and time in production environments.
Photos are more frequently used in print news media. Even the local
freebie papers now like to use decent, large front page photos. Full
page photo spreads are much more common in NewsMags than they used to
be.
The ability to see your images immediately and hold the equivalent of
hundreds of rolls of film in your bag is pretty compelling for
travellers.

How to make a digital SLR:
Take out the film drive mechanisms (Worth how many $$'s?)
Add in a nice sensor.
Develop and incorporate processing electronics and software.
Add in CF/SD interfaces and hardware.
Add in PC interface hardware.
Develop and add in user interface software. (Yeah, there is some of
this in a film camera, but it doesn't need to support zoom preview and
a bunch of other things...)
Develop PC software for the bundle.

So I until film is rare and commands a premium, I doubt we'll see a
DSLR at a lower cost than an equivalent film slr.

On the other hand, as others have mentioned, economies of scale and
some competition would really help to lower prices.

Jamie Fraser

You've got to realize a few things:
1) Pro dSLRs are not sold in the kind of numbers where the R&D costs
can be amortized by adding a couple bucks per body
2) You are also funding R&D on future products
3) Pro dSLRs don't have a lot of competition (yet) and the two companies
making most of them have pretty much set the price tag...when some of the
late-comers want to buy their way into the market, everybody will lower
prices
4) The products also don't have a long production lifespan to recover
R&D and production (tooling) costs...how many two year old designs does
anyone really want?

George

Well, the Nikon F5 I remember as being a $2800 body.  And then of
course there are the Leica products, but perhaps we should leave them
out of this.  

The sensors in the pro-grade cameras are *expensive*.  The yields on
chips that big are scarily low.  And the number of those cameras sold
isn't that high, which keeps the prices up.  I imagine there are a
number of custom chips besides the sensor, too, to get the performance
they need.  And a lot of software development being amortized over not
that many sales.  

It's probably also relevant that, *today*, a digital camera model has
a very short life-span compared to film bodies in the past.  

From the buyers point of view, a camera with a lifetime supply of film
and processing included that's only $2000 more expensive can be a hell
of a bargain.  The high-end cameras are mostly being bought by people
who shoot quite bit, and for most amateur and all professional work
these days it has to be scanned before it's used for anything, so
that's yet another cost saved by shooting digitally.  I figure very
roughly it costs me $20/roll to shoot film, so $2000 is 100 rolls of
film, which is about a year.   That's a pretty fast payoff.

To answer your question, there are price cuts. The D300 dropped $100 last
week.  What did it cost to get a 6 mp camera 3 years ago?

However, digital cameras, including DSLR's are hot products in a growing
market.  Until the development curve levels off and market saturation goes
up, prices on new models with the most features will be high. No
<intelligent> manufacturer is going to sell a product for less than the
market clearing price...

KB

 Here's what is nearly always missed when talking about camera prices:

 Businesses exist to make a profit.

 Really.  That's it, pure and simple.  It's plain economics, the companies
set their price points to where they can maximize profits.  There are
various product characteristics that tend to put that price point higher or
lower for different types of items, but in the end, the company is going to
charge what they feel will make them the most money.

 I have absolutely no doubt that Canon could slash the price of a 1Ds Mk II
by at least a thousand bucks and still be clearing a profit, but
realistically, they won't sell a sufficiently greater quantity at $7,000
than at $8,000 to make as much profit as they do at the $8,000 price point.

 It can also be argued that making profit is *good* for consumers, because
the higher the profit, the more desirable it is for other companies to enter
the market and compete - and competition is *always* good for the consumer,
as it tends to drive prices lower, and spur innovation.

 On a related note, I'm terribly excited about the 350D - not just because
I'm going to buy one and think it's a great value, but because I think it's
raised the bar enough to give the other companies something to worry about.
I think it's the kind of "bump up" that is going to have a very real effect
on product design and pricing throughout the entire low- and mid-range
market over the next couple of years.

steve

Two things to consider. First, whether it's a car or house or worker's wages
or taxes or whatever... just about everything is more expensive now than it
was back in 1985 (which you referenced later in your post). Second, and
perhaps more relevant, the digital age has brought about a new phenomenon to
camera bodies- shorter life of design. With changes happening very quickly,
the market lifespan of a particular model is very short. Thus amortizing
development costs is done over one, maybe two years... vs five, maybe ten
even previously?

Less-expensive models that sell in very large quantities will benefit from
cost savings as the electronics get ever cheaper, while more-expensive
models, due to their limited production runs, won't see their electronic
guts ever get all that cheap. Unlike mechanical things, which tend to have
significant recurring production costs (tooling that wears out), most of the
expense in a new silicon chip is during design and initial production. The
incremental cost of each new chip, after a certain point, is very low.

What will eventually happen is that you'll end up paying an ever-increasing
differential for that little extra that makes something a "pro" piece of
gear vs what the rest of us sloths use. The differences will be there, but
probably more in terms of mechanical issues, while it's likely that the
latest & greatest electronics will be found in the cheaper stuff.

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com