Will Sigma SD1 start the next wave of price increase for digital camera bodies?


ManWearPants

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2008
4,201
7
38
Singapore
As some will know, Sigma came up with a 15MP SD1 and priced it at US9,700 MSRP. Sigma's intention is to price this as a medium format and target it at customers who are only using it for stills such as studio/fashion, etc. So it is a pure money making camera for professionals. Now many will agree that the Foveon will be equals to 30MP in bayer sensor design. The next cameras that comes out from Canon, Nikon, Sony and the likes will most likely also be in the same megapixel. They may take a look at Sigma's pricing model and decide that they too may not want to cater to the masses for profits. Afterall, it is better for them to reduce production and yet keep to the same profit margin. This is especially helpful at a time like this when supply chains for components are limited. This in turn may be better for the professional photography community whom will see less amateurs who are able to keep up with the megapixel race. The rest of the amateurs will gawk at the prices of these new expensive gears and only a few cash rich will venture there. To the camera makers, this is a good opportunity to once again tighten on supply of pro-consumer bodies and sell one for the profit of three.

So do you think the other manufacturers will start pricing their next 30MP DSLR in prices only seen during the early days of DSLR. What if the next 30MP 5D MkIII is priced at S$7k and the 1DsMkIV at S$15k? Will you still want to buy it?

And secondly, if the pricing for new camera bodies are going to cost so much, how long do you think these kind of pricing will sustain before the prices will fall back to those of today that everyone can afford to own one.
 

Last edited:
No. Even 3 years ago, Sony had a 24MP DSLR for under 3k. The next generation will have 36-48MP, far exceeding the Sigma. Plus, Sony, Canon and Nikon have excellent lenses (such as the ZA lenses for Sony) while Sigma's lenses are so-so at best. Right now we're seeing the upcoming 24MP APS-C cameras that, years ago, would have cost 3k, coming for less than 1.5k.

Sigma is trying to compete with Hasselblad and will lose that fight. Canon, Nikon and Sony don't really care about the SD1 - they are competing with each other, and there it's a price war. They will price their bodies to out-sell the other, and not care one bit about a Sigma camera that might sell 300-500 units per yer max.
 

imo, the pricing of the sd1 is one of the worst joke of the year. Even if sigma built a superior sensor they are still have a lot of catchup to do as a system, such as professional support, lenses lineup, and better flash system.
 

The big guns probably cannot collaborate on the pricing cos that will spark off antitrust. While they will not see Sigma as a threat, they may be looking at the response to price skimming of a new product. So I believe the market's actual response to Sigma will have a role to play in how the others will price their new products, even if it is to sustain for just 6-12 months.

The price of 5DMKIII may not be just S$4k.
 

Last edited:
The big guns probably cannot collaborate on the pricing cos that will spark off antitrust. While they will not see Sigma as a threat, they may be looking at the response to price skimming of a new product. So I believe the market's actual response to Sigma will have a role to play in how the others will price their new products, even if it is to sustain for just 6-12 months.

The price of 5DMKIII may not be just S$4k.

No. They will not gamble on 6-12 months based on a camera that is, in terms of their sales volume, insignificant. The Sigma does NOT compete with them, they DO NOT have any dependency on the success or failure of the system, nor do 99.99% of buyers even KNOW or CARE about the Sigma camera.

It is a non-event.
 

Last edited:
Pentax 645D is a 40mp medium format camera that is already priced at $13k with a 55mm lens.
This is basically a MF camera about the size of some makes of 35mm DSLR. Weather sealed, modern AF and controls, not a digital back MF camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wPD1wRpels&feature=player_embedded
Its already garnered TIPA best professional camera award for 2010 as well as other awards.

Sigma is killing itself with the pricing of SD1.
They may not have a choice, since this equivalent 30mp sensor has no other user and therefore no economy of scale.
Neither does it have the impetus of RnD efforts in the most economically logical sensors (ie. APS-C; FF (35mm); u4/3).
Therefore, even if its 15mp, it has the cost of manufacture which is higher.
 

No. They will not gamble on 6-12 months based on a camera that is, in terms of their sales volume, insignificant. The Sigma does NOT compete with them, they DO NOT have any dependency on the success or failure of the system, nor do 99.99% of buyers even KNOW or CARE about the Sigma camera.

It is a non-event.

Why not? This is actually the best time to raise prices citing shortage of component supplies and supply chain disruptions. Just like our public transport system, prices go up never down :). The point here is not about Sigma cameras being a threat. The point is the pricing strategies starting a trend to price 30+ MP cameras way higher than previous launches.

For example, 5D2 during its lauched is ~$4.2k. The 5D3 may be 5,6 or even 7k. They don't need everyone to buy. As long as 1 out of 10 buy, they will reap the same profit margin. The rest can wait until the price comes down much later, who knows when. Similiar for the Nikons and Sonys.
 

Last edited:
Why not? This is actually the best time to raise prices citing shortage of component supplies and supply chain disruptions. Just like our public transport system, prices go up never down :). The point here is not about Sigma cameras being a threat. The point is the pricing strategies starting a trend to price 30+ MP cameras way higher than previous launches.

The point is, IF they need to increase prices because of parts shortage, it will have NOTHING to do with the Sigma camera.
 

The relevance of Sigma here is that it is putting a DSLR at a MF price. This is testing the market in terms of pricing. Nothing to do with Sigma vs Canon/Nikon/Sony.
 

The relevance of Sigma here is that it is putting a DSLR at a MF price. This is testing the market in terms of pricing. Nothing to do with Sigma vs Canon/Nikon/Sony.

That's Sigma's problem. But you also said:

"To the camera makers, this is a good opportunity to once again tighten on supply of pro-consumer bodies and sell one for the profit of three.

So do you think the other manufacturers will start pricing their next 30MP DSLR in prices only seen during the early days of DSLR. What if the next 30MP 5D MkIII is priced at S$7k and the 1DsMkIV at S$15k? Will you still want to buy it?"

My argument: No, they don't care at all about Sigma shooting itself in the foot. They will NOT see it as a chance to increase price, as nobody really cares about the Sigma camera. Any of the big 3 who adjust camera body price because of the Sigma is just plain stupid.

The only way the price of the Sigma would give the other makers more "leeway" in their pricing is if the sales volume of the Sigma was so high (i.e., they are a dominant player) that the otheres can increase price but keep their pricing at a more "affordable" level than the great big Sigma. But that's entirely not the case. The pricing of the Sigma has zero impact on C, N and S who sell 1000x the cameras Sigma does.

If anything, it is Sigma that should reduce it's price to be more competitive with the cheaper and cheaper cameras the big 3 are making.
 

No need to look too deeply into supply chain, Sigma's pricing strategy and the such. It is pretty common sense why are we seeing pricing coming down for DSLR in recent years. Mainly because manufacturing cost of key components had come down, so the affordable price. But also because there are a stiffer competition in the market that was once ruled by Nikon and Canon (and in a very small sector Pentax), but now there are Sony, Panasonic and the such. Thus the price war between these companies that actually benefitted us as consumers. Why would DSLR price started going up again to a stage where photography is again gentleman's game? Wouldn't that actually bring down profit of the sales because less camera system will be sold per year and this number will continue to decline... because people will not upgrade (cannot afford to).

As for Sigma... their targeted audience are Mid-range camera and not APS-C market thus the very high selling price... putting aside whether they will succeed or not, their entrance into the market would have absolutely no impact on other consumer level DSLR, not even pro level FF DSLR. And lets forget about supply being disrupted or whatever, the point is, they will continue making DSLR that are affordable. Maybe some price hike, but will not be so high as to throw off potential hobbyists (which incidently formed the major shares of their camera sales). Plus with components and supply being more expensive, we are likely to see our product being downcost (magnesium alloy body become Glass fill PC body, smaller LCD, lesser functions in camera, etc, etc) and also we might see down costing of the packaging of our camera and lens, and yet these new bodies and lens will cost the same unit price as older version of the camera.
 

That's Sigma's problem. But you also said:

"To the camera makers, this is a good opportunity to once again tighten on supply of pro-consumer bodies and sell one for the profit of three.

So do you think the other manufacturers will start pricing their next 30MP DSLR in prices only seen during the early days of DSLR. What if the next 30MP 5D MkIII is priced at S$7k and the 1DsMkIV at S$15k? Will you still want to buy it?"

My argument: No, they don't care at all about Sigma shooting itself in the foot. They will NOT see it as a chance to increase price, as nobody really cares about the Sigma camera. Any of the big 3 who adjust camera body price because of the Sigma is just plain stupid.

The only way the price of the Sigma would give the other makers more "leeway" in their pricing is if the sales volume of the Sigma was so high (i.e., they are a dominant player) that the otheres can increase price but keep their pricing at a more "affordable" level than the great big Sigma. But that's entirely not the case. The pricing of the Sigma has zero impact on C, N and S who sell 1000x the cameras Sigma does.

If anything, it is Sigma that should reduce it's price to be more competitive with the cheaper and cheaper cameras the big 3 are making.

My take on this is different from yours. The big 3 already dominated the market. By continuing to slash prices, they are cutting each others throat. They don't need to sell more cameras. They want to sell less cameras at the same or increased profit margins, ie do less for more money. Of course out of the big 3, maybe one still want to capture more market share by selling cheaper to the masses. Depending on the success of the pricing strategy of the Sigma, the other 2 may follow suit and price at a premium. As mentioned, the volume sold may drop but the revenue/profit remains the same. The bottomline of the company does not change. I think it does not matters to any of these companies if their market share is 40 or 60 % as long as they continue to make 300mil each year.
 

My take on this is different from yours. The big 3 already dominated the market. By continuing to slash prices, they are cutting each others throat. They don't need to sell more cameras. They want to sell less cameras at the same or increased profit margins, ie do less for more money. Of course out of the big 3, maybe one still want to capture more market share by selling cheaper to the masses. Depending on the success of the pricing strategy of the Sigma, the other 2 may follow suit and price at a premium. As mentioned, the volume sold may drop but the revenue/profit remains the same. The bottomline of the company does not change. I think it does not matters to any of these companies if their market share is 40 or 60 % as long as they continue to make 300mil each year.

Uhm. You're very wrong. They do NOT want to sell less cameras! Ever! Remember, more cameras = more lens sales and more accessories and more visibility! There is absolutely NO dependency on the pricing strategy of the Sigma, which placed itself in a totally different market than the other DSLR manufacturers.

To say that "I think it does not matters to any of these companies if their market share is 40 or 60 % as long as they continue to make 300mil each year" is a clear sign that you need to brush up a bit on business sense and gain some understanding on the DSLR market. The DSLR manufacturers will fight tooth and nail and work on thinner and thinner margins to gain market share - that's how they improve their image, can say "#1 in the world!", sell more lenses, etc etc etc.

You severely over-estimate the impact of the Sigma camera on the traditional DSLR manufacturers. They basically do not care - not unless Sigma reduces the price to a point where it's in the range of their own cameras, and actually makes these available on the standard retail shelves alongside their own cameras. None of this has happened or will happen.
 

Last edited:
We forgot several important things, if everyone wants to make bigger profits by selling lesser cameras for more money, then there will be lesser lenses sold, lesser people upgrading to L lenses, lesser battery grips sold and all the other miscellaneous. This will thus reduced their overall profits significantly.
 

lol Sigma SD1 will be the big big extreme failure, cannot fight with Canon/Sony/Nikon on the DSLR FF front and neither can it win Pentax/Hasselblad/Mamiya etc MF makers in the Medium format front. In fact they will lose so badly, it is not even funny. LOL USD$9700 for a APS-C poseur Medium format Cam. Canon/Sony/Nikon will be extremely stupid to raise their prices all.

Manwearpants is making the false assumption that people will actually want to buy the next higher generation cameras. What makes you think that the same group who brought the current more affordable FF cameras will buy the next gen at much higher prices? Consumers are not stupid and certainly not the market segment (most likely the true professionals)that will actually need the next generation cameras. Raising price will simply shut down sales of Canon/Sony/Nikon's next gen cam totally and people may just think they will wait for the next Gen.

Thinking that the big players will change their marketing strategy based on a big failure Camera will never happen.
 

Last edited: