Why do DSLR cameras have to be so expensive?

Camera bodies alone are $500-1000 or more. The best selling dslr costs twice or more as much as the best selling digital cam corder. I am sure there is more tchnology in an average dv camcorder, say sony dvr hc** than in the most basic slr, say the Nikon D40. So what is that one component in the dslr that makes it so expensive? The sensor?

LEM is correct about your comparison. Why do HD video cameras cost more than DSLRs?
To answer your question. You are right about the sensor. That would be the one component that causes a higher price. Video cameras with 35mm size sensors are very expensive. As Anthony pointed out, larger sensors are more costly to produce.
Analog to digital converters are a dime a dozen. If anything, high-end video would require more efficient D/A converters.

A camcorder only has a couple of megapixels. An SLR has a much bigger sensor with several times the pixels. Also, a camcorder usually has just a couple of simple shooting modes. An SLR has a whole range of various options. Put simply, the SLR is a lot more complex.

with DSLRs ur basically paying for quality. with say a point and shoot camera its more for snapshots and stuff like that. DSLRs are more advanced.

The biggest factor is the sensor. The size of an SLR sensor is several orders of magnitude larger than a camcorder or point and shoot camera.

The large size of the sensor reduces the number of sensors off a large chip, called the "yield." This pushes up the cost of the sensor dramatically.

Next add in specialized systems not found on point and shoots: mechanical shutter systems, mechanical autofocusing systems, mirror systems, matrix metering systems. You also have to have a signal processing chip system to handle tens of megabytes of data per second, convert it from RAW to jpeg and write the data, virtually instantly. By comparison, a camcorder has to work with a lot less data because the resolution is much lower.

So, in addition to the one component, the sensor, you've also got to factor in all the supporting elements.

All of these factors make SLRs expensive. Note though that prices are dropping. When I was buying my first SLR in the late 1970s, an entry-level SLR was just over $300. To be able to buy a better performing entry-level digital SLR with lens for $450 (like a Nikon D40 on sale with a lens) about 30 years later says something about how far technology has come and that the prices are nowhere as bad as you fear.

To be honest they are just like luxury cars. They have more built into them and can do lots more for the user than a regular car. DSLR's have better imaging, better lenses, better features than regular digital cameras. You can take wonderful images with the good digital cameras that fit in your pocket. No doubt about that. But if you want to take awesome images a DLSR will be the tool you need.

DV Guy
http://digitalvideocentre.com

Well, first of all you are comparing apples and oranges.

A dSLR, even as basic as D40 in still cameras world would be an equivalent of a high end prosumer camcorder in a camcorder world, which cost anywhere from $1500 and way up. Professional video cameras cost in tens of thousands of dollars, just like professional still cameras.

It's not just about what's inside, albeit the sensor as you mentioned is a lot more advanced in an average dSLR than in your average camcorder (dSLR like D40=6 million pixels, average NTSC camcorder=350 thousand pixels). The larger sensor that dSLR's feature also adds quite a bit to the cost. The sensors in point and shoot cameras as well as in camcorders are very small, the average dSLR sensor is a few times as big, making it more expensive to produce...

But aside from sensor, it's also a build quality and materials used that count. Plus cost to engineer. I am not positive in this respect, but I wouldn't state for sure that an average camcorder has a lot more technology inside than a dSLR. The camcorder has a zoom lens and tape mechanism. That's about all the moving parts inside. dSLR adds a shutter (most dSLR's have a lot faster shutters than consumer level cameras), the flipping mirror, and mechanics to focus mounted lenses (not all have it - D40 doesn't). And the rest of it is basically programmed on the chip in both camcorders and still cameras.

dSLR's usually require a very fast chip for that matter, because in ideal world they want to be shooting at high rate. And even though you'd say camcorder takes and records 29.97 images per second (25 in PAL), while dSLR's would record anywhere from 3 to 15 images per second, ones that camcorder have to process are at least 17 times smaller than those stills (see pixel count comparisons above). So 3 images per second at 6MP would mean processing 18 million pixels per second, and that's for the most modest dSLR's. The more advanced ones, like D200 (body costs just about $1200) can process 5 images per second at 10 mega pixels each, and that's 50 million pixels per second. In a camcorder we get 30 images per second at 0.35 mega pixels, which is just above 10 million pixels per second.

I could go on and on, but I think you got the idea... There's a lot of interesting and very technologically advanced stuff packed inside that dSLR body, so you must have at least a bit of respect for it (:

LEM.

Basically DSLR's are the digital extension of the professional 35mm cameras and lenses. The professional ones are actually built within the same body housing of the 35mm. If you do some research, you will find that there are three important factors within the DSLR's that account for the high prices.

* The analog to digital converter is perhaps the most important feature and most expensive part of the camera
* The size of the sensor is the second most important feature. There are two popular sizes at this time, the newer "full frame" and most popular APS-C. They are huge when compared to P&S camera sensors ... the full frame is over 30 times as large. The cost of making large sensors is high. Your futher research will explain all of that.
* The pixel count, while important is perhaps one of the least important of the important features of a digital camera. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.h...

The Sony camcorder you list has a tiny 3.2MP, 1/2.9" (4.8 x 3.6mm) sensor, the D40 a 6MP on a 23.7 x 15.5 mm sensor

There is actually far less technology in a camcorder than a DSLR.

A Sony dvr hc is to a $100,000 Sony broadcast video camera as a digital P&S is to a $8000 DSLR.


http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratin...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stor...