Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Comments posted in online forums can often require a correction.

I don't always have the time to address these inaccuracies, but this is one I took an exception to.
In response to a recent post of images captured with the new Sony A9III, one respondent was outraged at what he said was the rising prices of premium cameras. 'Price Gouging' was a term that I think he may have used, or some other equally disparaging comment.

So here are the approximate prices of premium interchangeable lens cameras over the last 33 years - the ones that Pro Photographers would have been looking to purchase..

Note 1 > Sony were late to the game in bringing a DSLR onto the market (after purchasing the Konica/Minolta plant). Their first premium models were, perhaps, not considered as 'Pro Cameras' at this time, but they were cheaper and had higher resolution sensors than the premium Nikon and Canon of the time.

For the more affordable 'consumer' full-frame models, we could use the following comparison: 15 years ago (in 2008) a 12 Megapixel Nikon D700 would set you back US $2,999. 3 years earlier the Canon 5D (12 Megapixels) would have set you back US3,299. In 2024 the 33 Megapixel Sony A7IV will set you back US $2,498 from B&H in New York.

Note 2 > $3,000 in 2008 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $4,274.15 today.

The US $6,000 price tag of the A9III may seem expensive to some but back in 2007 a Canon 1Ds MKII (the best sports camera at that time) would have set you back US $8,000 - equivalent to US $11,400 now. Premium sports cameras are close on 1/2 the price in 2024, compared to what we would have had to spend 15 years ago.

Consider the Online Response Corrected

-------------------------------------

1991 / Kodak DCS-1 / 1.3 MP / US $27,995

1999 / Nikon D1 / 2.7 MP / US $4,999

2001 / Nikon D1x / 5 MP / US $ 5,350

2002 / Canon 1Ds / 11 MP / US $7,999.00

2004 / Nikon D2x / 12 MP / US $5,500

2007 / Nikon D3 / 12 MP / US $4,999

2007 / Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III / 10 MP / US $8,000

2008 / Sony Alpha A900 / 24 MP / US $3,000

2010 / Canon 1D MK IV / 16 MP / US $4,999

2012 / Canon EOS-1D X / 20.2 MP / US $6,799

2012 / Nikon D4 / 16.2 MP / US $4,799

2012 / Sony A99 / 24 MP / US $2,800

2016 / Nikon D5 / 20 MP / US $6,499

2016 / Canon 1D X MK II / 20 MP / US $5,999

2017 / Sony A9 / 24 MP / US $4,499

2017 / Sony A7R III / 42 MP / US $3,200

2020 / Nikon D6 / 20.8 MP / US $6,500

2020 / Canon 1D X MK III / 20.2 MP / US $6,499

2021 / Sony A1 / 50 MP / US $6,498

2021 / Nikon Z9 / 45 MP / US $5,500

2021 / Canon R3 / 24 MP / US $5,999

2022 / Sony A7RV / 60 MP / US $3,898

2024 / Sony A9III / 24MP / US $5,998

Note > These are the best details I could come up with using Google search. You may find one or two specs that need correcting, but it is the overall trend that I am interested in showing rather than the price or resolution of one specific camera.

The image used in this post is the Kodak DCS-1 camera. I got to use this landmark camera shortly after it had been released in 1991. The box it is sitting on is part of the camera. It is the digital to analog converter, so we could see the image we had just taken - it was basically a black and white TV you strapped to your belt!

Files

Previews only

Comments

Thomas Antus

Interesting, Sony has become the technology leader - and Sony is the only manufacturer that offers two (!) high-speed cameras with different resolutions and functions at the same time and also offers the a7R V as a HiRes option. Nikon and Canon ever had just one (!) high-speed model and one HiRes option at the same time.

Mark Galer

I moved from Nikon to Sony in 2012 because of their innovative approach to camera and sensor design. Even Nikon and Canon owners who have stayed loyal to their brand have benefited form Sony shaking things up and accelerating the speed of change.

Anthony Byron

It's very true. Even put cheaper midrange cameras putdo the older 10k sports cameras nowadays . If a9iii was 50 odd mp I would have thrown money down and been very happy ut that's now what i will do for a1 ii which is why I bought a7rv for now for overall use inc my kids football and it's doing quite well till I await the above camera

Mark Galer

The D700 was my first full-frame DSLR. Out of the box it recorded 12-bit Raw photos and you could select an option in the menus to capture 14-bit but this action would slow the camera down. It had a grand total of 51 AF points (its wide AF area was not as big as Sony's current Zone AF area). Focus tracking was OK (not great) but the camera would struggle in low ambient light, there was no Eye AF and many of the lenses didn't have fast AF capabilities. Maximum Frames per second was 5fps. Even an A6400 with double the resolution, 8x the focus points, sticky AF Tracking would provide the user with better performance than the D700 - which was a very well respected time in its day.