Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

[Richard W]

I've recently been buying quite a lot of new kit (much of it chosen after reading opinions on this site, for which I am very grateful) after several years without buying anything. I always subscribed to the idea that “you only get what you pay for” but now I'm rethinking this. In some cases, at least, it seems one can now get very good kit for relatively low prices. Value for money has never been better. One example concerns the Sigma 150 – 600 mm lenses, already very popular and nobody seems to have a bad word to say against them. Another concerns flash guns. Like many people I now have Yongnuo which give the same functionality as the Canon equivalents at a fraction of the price, while my new ring flash also has full TTL etc at a lower price than I paid for a purely manual one 25 years ago.

Much of this is obviously down to China. True, you can still get very cheap rubbish from there, but they seem to be increasingly able to also produce quality products at a good price.

I'm wondering what people think of this. Are there other things that can be found at good prices but with decent quality? Conversely, are there items where one really has to pay to get quality? What about filters, such as polarisers and grey grads? Do all the cheaper ones give colour casts, for example?

[digiman]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Brands have inflated their prices for years, knowing that people will pay the price

I think the whole issue is a bit of a gamble. I have loads of cheaper gear, that I am delighted with, a tripod mount for my 70-200f4L for example, which I paid about £25 for, against the £130 for the canon. The two are identical! That said, I have some that is only fit for landfill! A case in point are some extending tubes that I bought for macro. They were cheap, £19.99. And it shows, with very unpredictable and inconstant results.

Regarding Yongnuo, I have two speedlights, which I am delighted with. This I think shows where Canon hugely inflate their prices because they know that people will pay for the brand.

With regards to items out with photography, I am a joiner/cabinet maker to trade. I have always lived by "Pay cheap pay twice", with a few exceptions. One being a powertool I bought from Lidl! A belt sander, £24.99 it cost me about 8 years ago and still going strong. Can't imagine that a £190 Makita would have been 7.5times better!

Just my thoughts,

Garry

[Robert Scott]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Brands have inflated their prices for years, knowing that people will pay the price

Regarding Yongnuo, I have two speedlights, which I am delighted with. This I think shows where Canon hugely inflate their prices because they know that people will pay for the brand.

Garry

When you purchase a Canon product you are making a contribution to the costs of a worldwide distribution network with offices in many countries. You are also helping to pay for print, cinema, television and internet advertising, plus sports sponsorship. Not to mention a major research and development programme. All this has made Canon the leading brand it is today.

Yongnuo is a small Chinese company which appears to sell mostly online. It has a very small R&D department and will certainly be spending far less than Canon on the development of new products.

Without the global market created by Canon, Nikon and other major photographic equipment manufacturers, companies such as Yongnuo would not have an outlet for their products.

I am not championing Canon, nor criticising Yongnuo, merely pointing out that business economics and product pricing is more complex than it might at first appear.

[the black fox]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

i here what your saying robert and fully understand ,but you yourself are selling kenko t.c's that are in direct completion with the canon and/or sigma ones ,they work exceptionally well as i found out the other week offering far more functionality than the equivalent canon ones for a third of the price .however your retail arm sells them for £139.00 and i presume that carries some sort of warranty ,but the self same item is available from various online retailers plus e/bay for £119.00 ,if i pursued it further i,m quite sure that i could get it for even less direct from china or via one of the reputable grey importers .
so where does that leave us the end user/buyer do we shop round for the cheapest deal or support someone like yourself that runs something we all enjoy and you obviously subsidise .????

[GORDH]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Sigma are also a global company with worlwide distribution and yet can turn out two 150-600mm lenses which are very highly rated across the photographic fraternity and are close enough in I.Q to any Canon L lens in that range for a hell of a lot less at around £750 for the C and £1200 for the Sport version whilst Canon choose not to cover that range the nearest being the 100-400 at nearly double the Sport

Also how does Canon justify selling a lens hood for the 500mm L lens which in truth is a thin 7 inch plastic tube for £510, to me Robert whilst I respect what you say it doesnt justify Canons stance on things such as the above so sorry I have to disagree with you

Kind Regards
Gord

[Richard W]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

I appreciate that Canon and other big companies are very much responsible for the development and improvements in camera technology that we see today. My 70D cost considerably less than the D30 that was the first digital SLR I bought, taking into account inflation as well as the vast technical improvement, it's an absolute bargain. I've also found the relatively low-cost IS STM lenses to be excellent value, within their limitations, the 10 - 18, 18 - 55, and 55 - 250 cover a wide range with much better quality than could have been found even a few years ago without spending far more. So I would include Canon in the "good value for money" category in many cases. However, when I looked for an AC adapter for the 70D I was amazed to find it selling for £110. It's basically just a simple power supply that would normally be supplied free with any electronic device, the D30 came with one included.

My point was not to criticise Canon but that you can get remarkably good value on many items these days and there is a wide choice out there. You can still buy rubbish of course, not surprising that people buying a complete set of "neutral" grey grads, holders and adapters for £20 complain that their pictures turn purple, there are limits to what we can expect. I think online reviews also help, a product that gets a lot of bad reviews will quickly lose buyers and disappear, while one which gets rave reviews, such as the Sigma 150 - 600, will be big sellers and the company will thrive. Competition is always good for the consumer.

Richard

[Nathaniel]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

YOu have also left out the third party batteries sold by the EOS shop, which are considerably cheaper than Canon. The moral is one has to shop around to get value for money.

[rcarca]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Sigma, Yonguo, Kenko at al can only exist because there is a Canon, a Nikon and a couple of other global camera manufacturers. But theirs is a classic intervention: attack a niche and do what you are good at. With some luck the niche will expand. Hopefully it will also prod the Canons etc into aggressive innovation (and there seems to be some expectation of that from Canon over the medium term - and perhaps even in the shorter term with the 5Div ) I have no doubt you can get really good products, and apart from the fact that I have 560mm with my 100-400 plus 1.4x I would consider the Sigma - especially seeing the quality of the photographs on here. But right now, I quite like the reassurance of the "made by Canon" stamp. Earlier in my photographic journey I looked for cheap and cheerful and to be honest much of it was disappointing. But then these guys have improved, so I am probably being suckered by my early experiences over 30 years ago!!!

My bad!

[the black fox]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

i have to admit i have had other sigma stuff over the last ten years that left a lot to be desired i/q wise ,but having luckily got my hands on a pre-production i50-600 sport i was blown away by the test shots i took ,also the general feel ,i to had 560mm reach with a canon 400
+ 1.4tc but there was always something niggling at me i/q wise.
is this as good as it gets well i have to admit the sigma does have its quirks but knowing lots of people/friends,flickr contacts that i often shoot alongside and with them using equipment that cost several thousand pounds more ,and in all honesty except under the most adverse conditions i can equal or surpass them ,thats factual and done it time and time again .only when the light drops badly does it effect me .and even then the results often surprise me

.

[paul linton]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

It isn't only camera gear it's the same with all electrical stuff,look in currys/PC world some TVs costing £2000 others £600 they all do the same thing.

It's all down to choices and what you can afford or are willing to pay, i also love the resale value of Canon lenses as they hold there price far more than any other third party lens maker.

I have being down that road using third party lenses and they do perform well so it's very tempting but they never feel like an investment just a throw away lens but does that really matter if you get 2/3 years work out of them!

Paul

[Richard W]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

A £700 lens will never be a "throw away" for me, but then my car is 18 years old (though only done 98,000 miles) and I'll keep driving it until it fails its MOT so badly that it would cost more to repair than its worth. I've never resold anything and so resale value isn't an issue for me.

The first 300 mm lens I bought many years ago from a now long gone (thank goodness) manufacturer was so bad that I don't think I got a single shot that was remotely sharp. That was thirty plus years ago and there were many independent lenses from Japan around but only really Sigma, Tamron and Tokina survive because they produced decent kit at a fair price. I suspect we are now seeing a similar situation with regard to China, lots of new companies appearing making very similar things, in 20 years time the best will still be going and producing good stuff, the rest will disappear.

There's also a parallel with cars, back in the 1960s/70s/80s there were a lot of really poor cars, unreliable and rusting away in no time (many of them British). Today, there are no really bad cars, you pay more for size, power, comfort, extras, but even the cheapest are generally reliable and will last. I think it's the same with lenses, nothing from the major manufacturers is going to be really bad, you may pay more for finish and (often) larger maximum aperture, maybe better bokeh or such like, but I suspect that the picture quality that we get usually has more to do with technique than the lens.

[paul linton]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Hi Richard

I see big companies are now selling there name rights to cheap chinese products (you think your buying a brand name but you're not.)
Not really sure this is a good idea another big con for the general public

Paul

[rcarca]

Re: Is “you only get what you pay for” no longer true?

Hi Richard

I see big companies are now selling there name rights to cheap chinese products (you think your buying a brand name but you're not.)
Not really sure this is a good idea another big con for the general public

Paul

I am not sure about that, but I do know a lot of stuff is outsourced, including manufacturing (e.g. Apple), so that many organisations are more brand than substance. Some time ago I did a big research project on "virtual" organisations that have got rid of their assets/infrastructure and are basically harvesting the brand value. Think for example of IHG (Intercontinental Hotels Group) which owns next to no hotels, but is one of the biggest hotel companies in the world!

Richard