Why the difference between launch price and street price matters

This is the concluding article looking at why our perspective on cameras’ prices can seem out-of-step with other people’s initial reactions, on the day of launch. And it covers that fact the MSRPs always seem expensive, at first.

I don’t think we’ve reported on many launches without at least some people commenting, “it’s too expensive, what are they thinking?” or some variation thereof. And then comparing the price to the cost of an outgoing model, the price they paid for something in a sale, years earlier, or a second-hand deal on a completely unrelated camera type.

All of which is to miss the point. MSRPs aren’t the same thing as street prices and, although they’re quoted in the same units, they’re not particularly comparable.

MSRPs are the manufacturer’s opening gambit: they generally represent the highest price they’ll ever get for a product. An ‘early-adopter tax’, in many instances.

On the day of launch, all cameras look over-priced because their peers have been on the market for a while, their prices have softened somewhat, or they’ve explicitly been put on sale. And those MSRPs look even more overpriced if you compare them to the outgoing model, or a previous one because the manufacturer and retailers are trying to get rid of them, before they become impossible to sell.

The Nikon Z5IIC tied with the original Z5 as the second-least-expensive full-frame digital camera ever launched, even without considering the effect of inflation in the meantime. Recognizing that, despite cheaper options still hanging around, helps understand why, for instance, Nikon down-specced the rear screen: because it’ll end up selling well below its list price, soon enough.Richard Butler / Mitchell Clark

But, just in case it needs saying: no manufacturer can introduce a new product at the narrow-to-no margin price that the outgoing model is being flogged-off at. Nor can they sensibly consider the second-hand prices of decade-old higher-end models, when setting prices.

This all varies somewhat between markets. In the US, list prices are more aggressively maintained than in Europe and the UK, where retailers have more freedom to offer some sort of discount fairly soon after the camera hits the shelves. This, along with Euro and Sterling prices usually being quoted including tax, is a big part of why US prices typically appear cheaper at first: because the US list price is set at a level that more people will have to actually pay.

None of which is an attempt to say you should just pay the MSRP on Day 1: quite the opposite. If an older, higher-end model is still floating around when the new model is launched and it suits your requirements, you should probably buy that. Our attempts to put pricing in a longer-term context aren’t an attempt to encourage you to buy something at full price.

But if history has repeatedly shown that those old models disappear from the market and the price of the new camera drops to a level comparable to others launched at the same MSRP, then it would be perverse and unhelpful to pretend we don’t know this. We want our reviews to still make sense a month or so after publication, which they won’t if we declare all new cameras “overpriced” despite what we know will happen next.

MSRPs let us see how things are positioned, relative to one another. They help us understand the price point, rather than the literal consumer price, of a camera.

Inflation muddies the waters still further, and prices are going up, but it’s worth remembering that launch prices have always looked too high. Even for that camera you’re now holding up as an example of what this new model should cost.