I always figured digital camera prices would drop the way the other technological consumer products tend to drop once mass production kicks in and competition builds. But it seems like the prices have held steady. Will the average cost ever come down?
While you’ll likely see low-quality low priced models, I think the average price of a decent camera will hover around the same price, but you’ll get higher quality (ie more megapixels, zoom & close-up features) for the same money.
?? They have dropped quite a bit… my 1.3 MP Olympus Camedia D-340 cost $300 new about three years ago. Now HP, Fuji and others have 2 MP models with more features in the $170 range.
Just like computers, digital camera prices have been falling in real terms. You can get the same camera much cheaper now than a couple years ago or for the same price you can get a much bettr camera.
Prices have fallen in absolute terms as well. You can get a 1-megapixel camera for under $100 now. As I recall, there were no digital cameras at all in that price range until recently (1 or 2 years?).
Digital cameras are shaping up much like PCs…the pricepoints remain the same, but the performance increases.
$2,000 for a home computer has gotten you everything from a 16 MHz 386 to a 2.66 GHz Pentium 4.
$400 for a digital camera has gotten you everything from a 1.2 Megapixel basic camera to a 4.0 (and up) Megapixel with loads of features.
Decide what you are willing to spend on a camera, wait as long as you can stand it, and then buy the best camera you can for your money.
-
-
- Also note: the reason for digital cameras is to take pictures and immediately use them in a digital setting, not to take high-quality pictures. If you want high-quality pictures though, stay with 35mm film. A $50 35mm auto-everything/idiot camera can easily take better pictures than a $250 digital camera can.
~
- Also note: the reason for digital cameras is to take pictures and immediately use them in a digital setting, not to take high-quality pictures. If you want high-quality pictures though, stay with 35mm film. A $50 35mm auto-everything/idiot camera can easily take better pictures than a $250 digital camera can.
-
Good advice, but that leads to the next question: is there a hard physical limit predictecd for the number of pixels you can fit on one CCD? Is there a point, even if it’s decades down the road, where the manufacturers will stop trying to add more pixels, or decrease the bulk of the unit?
Umm… what are you talking about? The price for digital cameras has plummeted in the last few years. The same 400. - 500 that bought you a 1 - 2 megapixel camera will now get you a more advanced 3 - 4 megapixel unit with many more features. Memory chips for storage have gone way down in price. The 1-2 megapixel cameras are now 100 - 200.
i don’t think so! with film you shoot 36 frames and wait a week to see which of those 36 are worth anything. my 4 mp canon g2 allows me to take pictures and immediately evaluate them. then i can fix 'em on photoshop and i’ve got lot’s of great looking pictures. i bet most people can’t tell the difference between a print from 35mm film and a print from a 4 mp digicam.
I’m gonna have to agree with aggiej. I recently had some photos developed from my 2 mp digicam and they are very good quality. I wouldn’t have been able to tell that they were digital if I didn’t know.
There are two ways to get more pixels: make the pixels smaller, or make the entire CCD larger. Pixel size is around 5 microns now. It’s difficult to make it smaller with current technology since the smallest structures you can make on a semiconductor is around 0.2 microns, and a single pixel is made up of several electrodes. Also if you make the pixel smaller you collect fewer photons per pixel, so sensitivity goes way down. And at some point, wavelength of light will become a limiting factor and there will be no point in going smaller - around 1 micron or so. But I suspect that the resolution, quality and alignment of the lens will become a limiting factor before you get to 1 micron pixels.
There is no theoretical limit on how large the entire CCD can be. The problem here is cost. CCDs are semiconductors and their prices are more or less proportional to size (area). Large CCDs will always be expensive unless there is a major change in semiconductor fabrication techniques. I’ve seen CCDs that take up an entire 6-inch wafer, but those are for very specialized applications; you can buy a very nice house for the price of one of those. A camera with a 36x24mm CCD (same size as 36mm film) currently costs about $7000, and the current crop of $2000 digital SLRs use 24x16mm or smaller CCDs.
I, too, am baffled as to how you couldn’t notice that prices HAVE dropped. I just purchased a 3.2 megapixel camera witha 128mb card for Mrs. RickJay for a total price, in US dollars, of maybe $375. Two years ago it was a $600 item.
My husband and I recently upgraded from a 2 mp cam to a 4 mp. With the 2 mp camera, you could tell that it was digital if you tried to make an 8x10" print, as it was slightly blurred. The 4 mp camera makes even great 8x10" photos.
I prefer digital cameras, since we were horrible at getting full rolls of film developed - we only take pictures on occasion and so rolls took forever to use up, plus you weren’t really sure how they’d turned out. They’ve just been ideal for our situation.
There are pro digital cameras out now that are in the 11 megapixel range, so I guess it’s either more CCDs per camera, or they’re just getting better.
Even better, Guanolad… a 13.7 megapixel pro camera for only four grand. That’ll make a damn fine 11" x 14" print.
Spoofe,
I’m sure it will make a very fine 11 x 14, but for 100 bucks I can buy a film camera that will make an even better one. I guess if all you ever want is a 4 x 6 full image print a 3-4 megapixel camera will be fine, but if you have any interest in cropping or enlarging then surely stick with film. You will be money and quality ahead. Also, no one really knows how long those digital prints will last.
If you get a Fuji Pictrography or similar printer, the prints last as long as any color photo print because they use the same process as a photo print machine. Such printers are expensive but there are many places that offer print services using those printers.
Also, digital data can be copied without loss. If properly maintained (i.e. copied to new media every decade or so) digital data can last indefinitely.
Right, the data can last indefinately but looking at a the burn pattern on a CD doesn’t do the photo justice. Anyway, I was talking about your typical user who will print or forget about the photo within a short period of time. I have to admit that digital is catching up with film qualitywise rather quickly. I read somewhere that film has the equivalent of about 16 megapixel resolution (no idea how it was measured). I guess the bottome line for me is that film is the current gold standard as far as resolution is concerned. I see no real advantages to digital, although I own one.
You don’t see any advantages to going digital? How about:
The ability to erase a picture on-the-spot if it’s not up to snuff.
The ability to take 200+ pictures without having to switch out film.
With a decent photo printer(some with memory card interfaces), you can print out your pictures at home without much hassle. A recently purchased 5 megapixel Olympus camera paired with an HP PSC 950 yields very impressive results.
Easily import your photos into Photoshop for total control over the image.
Easily email pictures to customers/relatives.
Anyhoo, digital is a lot more convenient. A lot of pros still stick with film for now, but a lot of them I know are switching to digital at a high rate.