At What Point Do You Say “That Camera Is Just Too Expensive” No Matter How Much You Want It?

It is all about textures. (click to enlarge)

Truth be told, for the past couple of years, I wanted a Leica Q3 or Q3 43. Maybe even a Leica SL3. I’m thinking ‘retirement’ or 'forever' camera, potentially.  One I would keep and use after I decided to wind down my photographic activities.  For me it will be no time soon but the time will come.  

That said, I’ve never come close to actually buying a digital Leica. Why? Simply because, even though I could afford to buy one and still pay my bills (I am fortunate and grateful for that), Leica has raised their prices to the point that I can’t justify spending that kind of money for a camera body, even with the “Leica mystique,” build quality, image quality, “Leica Looks,” prestige, etc. No. In my opinion, where a few years ago I thought I may buy one I think Leica has now gone too far in raising their prices.  The sadder thing is the other camera manufacturers are heading the same way. 

In order to spend 'that kind of money' I would have to feel I was getting a lot of value for the cost.  As it is now, Sony (A7rVI at $4495), Canon (R5II at $4400), Nikon (Z8 at $4300), etc., have gotten what I would call, very expensive. Even the cameras on the next level down have gotten expensive. For example the Sony A7V (at $2900), Canon R6III (at $2800), OM-1 Mark II (at $2400), Nikon Z6III (at $2400) and Fujifilm X-T5 (at $2000). I'm really having a hard time thinking that any of those top tier camera bodies will provide the requisite value that makes purchasing one any sense at all. Seriously, what can they do that the prior model can’t do?  Maybe a bit faster, if you need extremes speed.

I don't know what the camera and lens manufacturers’ profit margins are, but even with global friction, they can't keep raising prices the way they have and expect us 'ordinary' non-professionals to keep paying those prices. I think they are close to pricing themselves beyond reach for many of us—more of us than ever before. By the way, those are list, non-sale prices of the cameras mentioned above.  Also, the lesser models, although not as expensive are still expensive compared to value we receive.

Since Leica is the price leader, let's use them as an example.  I’ve owned and used a number of Leica film cameras as my primary 35mm cameras from 1997 and up to 2004 when I fully switched to digital cameras (Nikon D70).  I can tell you Leica cameras are extraordinarily well built, the lenses are as good as any and better than most and there is a certain ‘mystique' that comes with owning and using the cameras.  You are in the ‘the club,’ so to speak. But, in today’s digital world, it is my opinion that they can’t do anything a camera from another brand can do.  In fact, they do less, don’t provide the best functionality (AF, no joystick as examples) and provide fewer features than many cameras priced thousands of dollars less.  Technology is the great equalizer when it comes to digital photography.  But back to my point.

At what point in time do you ask yourself, “When is something just too expensive for what I’m getting—for the value?” At what point do you decide that something is too expensive to buy, even though you can easily afford it? Not when buying it would create a financial hardship, but when you simply decide that the asking price is more than you are willing to pay. There is a difference, and it is worth thinking about.

Photography provides plenty of examples. A mid-range camera might cost $3,000, a lens $1,500 and a higher-end model considerably more. You have the money, you enjoy photography and buying the equipment won’t affect your ability to pay the bills. Yet you look at the price and decide, “Nope. Not for that much.” When does that happen and why?

One consideration we make is value rather than affordability. What will you actually gain by spending the money? Will that expensive lens produce photographs you couldn’t make with the lens you already own? Will a new camera meaningfully improve your photography, or will it simply provide an improved collection of the same features? If the improvement is marginal, the price may be difficult to justify, regardless of your bank balance.

Of course, the same reasoning applies to automobiles, homes, hotel rooms, sporting events, concert tickets, and just about everything else. You may be able to afford a luxury automobile but decide that the additional cost buys more prestige (Mercedes mystique?) than practical benefit. You might afford a $400 hotel room but find that a clean, comfortable room for $150 serves your needs just as well. And you might decide that a ticket to see your favorite football team or performer isn’t worth the asking price, even though you have the money to pay for it.

Another consideration is what is called ‘opportunity’ cost. Money spent on one thing cannot be spent on something else. That $3,000 camera might be worth its price in isolation, but what else could you do with the money? Buy another lens or two, take a trip, enjoy several memorable experiences or simply leave the money in the bank for emergencies. Then factor in the continually rising cost of food, groceries, utilities, fuel, education, taxes, goods & services, etc.  Those expenses keep rising as well and those expenses are mostly non-discretionary. The question isn’t merely whether you can afford the purchase, but whether it represents the best use of your resources.

The psychology of this has to be taken into consideration and it complicates matters. We are susceptible to advertising, internet influencers, new product excitement, fear of missing out (FOMO) and the belief that bigger, newer and more expensive must mean better. Photographers seem particularly familiar with the temptation to upgrade equipment in pursuit of some elusive improvement. I know I am. Manufacturers continually give us reasons to believe that the next camera or lens will make a difference. Sometimes it will. Sometimes the difference will be indistinguishable in actual photographs.

Then there is the pleasure of ownership itself. This hits home for me. A beautiful camera, a finely made lens or well-designed tool can provide satisfaction beyond its practical function. That pleasure has value, too. I know I really appreciate finely engineered and crafted items. They are beautiful to look at and very satisfying to hold and use. It would be a mistake to dismiss every discretionary purchase as irrational simply because a less expensive alternative exists. We don’t always buy things to maximize efficiency. Sometimes we buy them because we enjoy them or just want them.  I think that is okay if you can afford them.

On the other hand, being able to afford something doesn’t obligate us to buy it. Nor does a high price automatically make something worthwhile. There is no virtue in paying more than you believe an object or experience is worth simply because you have the money.

So where does that leave us? I suspect the answer is much different from one person to the next. Some people are comfortable paying a premium for the best available equipment, craftsmanship, convenience, or exclusivity. Others are satisfied when they find something that meets their needs at a reasonable price. Neither approach is inherently right or wrong. For me, perhaps the most useful question is this: Will the pleasure, usefulness, or experience I receive justify the price I must pay? Not whether I can afford it, not whether someone else thinks it is worth the money, and not whether I might regret missing out if I don’t buy it. Just whether the purchase makes sense to me.

Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes it is no. The important thing is recognizing that having the money to buy something and believing it is worth buying are two entirely different things.

The bottom line about this is when it comes to photography, I believe we are rapidly approaching the time, cost and collective opinion that what the camera manufacturers are now and will offer us in the way of new cameras is reaching the tipping point where more and more of us will shake our heads and say 'no.' “You're asking too much.” More and more of us will keep the cameras and lenses we have now as they are more than sufficient for everything we want to do with them and not spend our hard earned cash on new gear. I think the time is near when the message will be sent, not all at once but incrementally over the next few years, that the companies have priced themselves out of their own markets.  I hope the camera companies see this coming and are working on ways to reduce costs to keep us as customers otherwise, they won’t be around much longer.

To bring this post full circle, if I were to buy a Leica Q3, Q3 43 or SL3, my heart would be saying yes but my head, a staunch no. If I bought one, I would be buying it knowing that I was not getting the value that makes sense for the cost, my photographs wouldn’t be any better and others wouldn’t be admiring me because I was using one. It would be purely because I wanted one, cost be damned…and I would probably be second-guessing my decision for a long, long time.  

What do you think? Are you willing to pay more and more and more for new gear? Do you think these continually rising prices give you the value you deserve for the incremental upgrades we’re getting? Are we reaching a tipping point where gear is just too expensive to justify what we’re getting for our money? Does the gear you already own do everything you need it to do and give you the image quality that is more than sufficient? Will you even buy anymore expensive cameras? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Join me over at my website, www.dennismook.com.

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!

Dennis A. Mook

All content on this blog is © 2013-2026 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.