Here is why pricy equipment matters

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

From tomorrow's (3/17) Washington Post article:

"... This part of the brain (the medial orbitofrontal cortex) makes judgments about pleasure, and intriguing new research has found that the price people pay for something can subtly and unconsciously change how much pleasure they derive from it . The medial orbitofrontal cortex research suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, people who buy something at a discount may unconsciously derive less satisfaction than people who pay full price, or a premium, for the very same thing.

... said Baba Shiv, a Stanford University behavioral economist, who was part of a team of researchers who studied the medial orbitofrontal cortex. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences... Along with California Institute of Technology neuro-economist Antonio Rangel and others, Shiv had people evaluate two bottles of wine, priced at $10 and $90. What the volunteers did not realize was that the wine in the expensive and cheap bottles was the same.

A host of studies have previously shown that people's judgments about quality are powerfully influenced by price. Because of a general assumption that expensive things have higher quality, people have been shown to value everything from clothing to food more highly when the price is marked up, compared with when the same items are cheap. Shiv and his colleagues expected the subjects would say the expensive wine was better -- and this was exactly what they found.

What surprised the researchers, however, was that when they conducted a brain-imaging study of the wine tasters, they found that people who drank the more expensive wine had a larger activation in their medial orbitofrontal cortex.

In other words, the subjects were not reporting that the expensive wine was better merely because they figured it ought to be better. Rather, they were actually experiencing more pleasure when they drank a bottle of wine priced at $90, compared with when they drank the same wine from a $10 bottle.

Shiv called this phenomenon the price-placebo effect, because of its similarity with the placebo effect in medicine: When people think they are getting medication but actually get sugar pills, they sometimes experience the side effects and benefits of the real drug ..."

No wonder they (ok, we) are known as 'equipment junkies'  

[jjj]

Sometimes you can increase sales simply by upping your prices as people percieve your services to be better, simply as you're more expensive.

There's a social photography franchise in the UK, known for it's pricey prints. And it seems people both like to complain whilst actually boasting about how much their photos cost.

[Nick Rains]

From tomorrow's (3/17) Washington Post
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quick, email me the sports pages...

Good article, and thought provoking, although there are now three threads on this topic! I had to laugh - I clicked 'new posts' to see "Your Camera does make a difference" right next to "Your Camera does NOT make a difference".

Does, doesn't, does so, it soooo does not....

   

If anyone can state categorically that their camera makes no difference under any circumstances, then maybe we have something to argue about. Otherwise it's all a matter of proportion and point of view.

Good debate though...

[Tim.Lewis]

Hi Nick

As a fellow Aussie, you know how much there is to photograph in this fantastic landscape.

I help administer another Photoshop /  photography as well.  There was much interest when one member posted a link to Ken Rockwell's review of the new Nikon D300.  Several members rushed out and got one.

I looked at all the features in the new "must-have" model and concluded that I would be able to justify buying one when the D400 came out!  I have a D200 and a D1H.  I have  employment in my profession as an exploration geologist.  I could easily afford the body.  My work takes me to remote and beautiful parts of the outback, so I do not lack for subject matter.  

However, due to the extremely dusty conditions of my work I only take my Ricoh R40 into the field.  It certainly suffers for it.

So whether I had a D200 or a D300 would make NO difference as they both take exactly the same photograph in the camera bag (sadly).  This is the only circumstance I can think of where the camera makes no difference, unfortunately I find my cameras in this situation too often.

Cheers

Tim

[Tim.Lewis]

Hi Slobodan56

It is an interesting piece of research you cite.

I wonder if anyone has researched similar responses to brand?

Would you get as much pleasure from the use of a camera that was in every way identical to a Mamiya ZD, if it was a Holga ZD?

Cheers

Tim

[Dave Millier]

Good job they didn't use me as a test subject.  I think I must break the paradigm.

For example, whilst I own a Kodak 14n and a Canon 5D, the camera I use for 90% of my photography is a humble Canon 350D.

Why?

Simply because it is small and light.

The 5D is a much more expensive and expensive feeling camera with better controls,viewfinder build, responsiveness etc etc and it cost 4x what the 350D cost me but truth be told whilst I like using it, I don't like carrying it, so it stays at home most of the time.  

So much for yet another contradictory research project!

[Paul Kay]

Intriguing!

But why are cut-price internet camera sales sites doing so well compared to their high street competitors who have to charge more?

[Quentin]

Perfume manufacturers have relied upon this phenomenon for years.  

Also people like to feel they can own something others cannot afford.  There must be precious little reason to drive a Ferari in London, with an average traffic speed of around 15mph, other than to show off.  Hey, check out my wallet!

I think that also feeds through to a belief that if you have paid more it MUST be better, empirical evidence notwithstanding.  On equipment forums, its not uncommon to see these assumptions manifest themselves.

Quentin

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Intriguing!

But why are cut-price internet camera sales sites doing so well compared to their high street competitors who have to charge more?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps because the product is identical AND the buyers are quite aware of that fact. The nature of the experiment mentioned in the article is that the wine was the same, but the testers were not aware of it. On the contrary, they believed they are drinking two different wines, one for $10, the other for $90 a bottle.

[Ray]

Perhaps because the product is identical AND the buyers are quite aware of that fact. The nature of the experiment mentioned in the article is that the wine was the same, but the testers were not aware of it. On the contrary, they believed they are drinking two different wines, one for $10, the other for $90 a bottle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no doubt that there are many people who are very suggestible and gullible and willing to believe whatever they want to believe, whatever gives them pleasure. But I doubt the results of this wine tasting experiment would have been the same if the participants had been wine connoisseurs.

It reminds me of the sort of experiment which sometimes appears in introductory text books on psychology. College students are divided into two separate groups. One group is told they are drinking an alcoholic beverage, which is in fact alcohol free, but tastes like an alcoholic drink. The other group is given fruit juice laced with alcohol, but told their drinks are alcohol free.

After some time, the group that thinks it's drinking an alcoholic beverage, but isn't, becomes rowdy and belligerent and begins attacking its professors for the lousy grades handed out. But the group that actually is drinking alcoholic beverages, but believes it isn't, remains peaceful and well-behaved.

Such outcomes as this only work with the naive. I doubt whether seasoned pixel peepers would be influenced by the price of their camera, although I have occasionally got the impression from some of the comments from DB owners on this forum, that they might be unduly influenced by the price of their equipment, believing in all sorts of special attributes such as extra 3-dimensionality  .

[Dave Millier]

There's no doubt that there are many people who are very suggestible and gullible and willing to believe whatever they want to believe, whatever gives them pleasure. But I doubt the results of this wine tasting experiment would have been the same if the participants had been wine connoisseurs.

It reminds me of the sort of experiment which sometimes appears in introductory text books on psychology. College students are divided into two separate groups. One group is told they are drinking an alcoholic beverage, which is in fact alcohol free, but tastes like an alcoholic drink. The other group is given fruit juice laced with alcohol, but told their drinks are alcohol free.

After some time, the group that thinks it's drinking an alcoholic beverage, but isn't, becomes rowdy and belligerent and begins attacking its professors for the lousy grades handed out. But the group that actually is drinking alcoholic beverages, but believes it isn't, remains peaceful and well-behaved.

Such outcomes as this only work with the naive. I doubt whether seasoned pixel peepers would be influenced by the price of their camera, although I have occasionally got the impression from some of the comments from DB owners on this forum, that they might be unduly influenced by the price of their equipment, believing in all sorts of special attributes such as extra 3-dimensionality  .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sigma/Foveon owners say much the same thing. Except me. I scrutinised my SD9 pictures for hours and I got to say that although the detail rendition is amazing for the pixel count, prints look exactly the same as bayer sensors as long you don't pick a subject with the kind of closely spaced patterns that provokes aliasing. Then you can see a difference: the foveon produces luminance aliasing while a camera like my 350D produces maze and colour aliasing - but nary a trace of any specially 3D effect...

[BernardLanguillier]

In other words, the subjects were not reporting that the expensive wine was better merely because they figured it ought to be better. Rather, they were actually experiencing more pleasure when they drank a bottle of wine priced at $90, compared with when they drank the same wine from a $10 bottle.

Shiv called this phenomenon the price-placebo effect, because of its similarity with the placebo effect in medicine: When people think they are getting medication but actually get sugar pills, they sometimes experience the side effects and benefits of the real drug ..."

No wonder they (ok, we) are known as 'equipment junkies'   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photographers tend to buy expensive gear because they know from past experiences and benchmarks that they offer objective value compared to cheaper ones.

The 2 main differences I see between cameras and wine is that

1. Wine provides a physical pleasure that cameras normally don't (unless you use your shutter in ways that I would not recommend),

2. We have a set of well defined metrics along which objective third party testers measure cameras against one another and against older offerings.

The existence of these public benchmarks impacts the price structure of the market, and pretty much gets rid of the emotional aspect related to less measurable items like wine. Cameras that DO perform better are typically more expensive than those that perform worse, you cannot say the same about wine because there simply isn't any objective measurement of what a better wine is (beyond a certain level obviously). There are of course a few oddities like the Leica M8, but otherwise value does correlate with price very well.

Now, on whether people really need the level of performance of the gear they buy, and whether buying good gear provides a form of pleasure. I would personnally argue that - in the case of cameras - the pleasure is not directly the result of the price paid, but of:

1. The anticipation of the potential of the gear that gives a feeling of power,
2. A certain feeling of superiority one gets by buying things that most people around are not buying.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I doubt the results of this wine tasting experiment would have been the same if the participants had been wine connoisseurs.

... I doubt whether seasoned pixel peepers would be influenced by the price of their camera...

If I understood you correctly, it is difficult to fool experts, be they wine connoisseurs, camera experts or... investment experts. However, the history is full of failed experts predictions, and this is the latest example (happened today actually):

An expert statement on Bear Stearns.

P.S. For those unfamiliar with financial markets, Bear Stearns was one of the largest investment banks and brokerage firms in the world until today. Its shares were $75 just a week ago, but today (Monday, 3/17) another investment firm bought it for ... $2 a share, leaving financial markets in panic world wide. Jim Cramer has a daily show with investment advice at CNBC, and the above episode was from Tuesday, 3/11/08.

P.P.S. I realize this was quite off-topic and my apologies to all who consider their time wasted, but I just could not resist, since it happened today.

[Digiteyesed]

the price people pay for something can subtly and unconsciously change how much pleasure they derive from it

Actually, the more you spend, the better looking (and generally cleaner) the call girl. So, yes, I can see this one adding to one's pleasure.

What's that? We were talking about cameras?

Oh.

Sorry.

[Ray]

Actually, the more you spend, the better looking (and generally cleaner) the call girl. So, yes, I can see this one adding to one's pleasure.

What's that? We were talking about cameras?

Oh.

Sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You seem to have missed the point, Digiteyesed. The implications of the research to which Slobodan referred are that some people will actually experience a genuine increased pleasure as a result of being fooled into believing the more expensive product is always the better product.

The analogy with the call girl would be that the pleasure increases with the price paid, despite the call girl remaining and behaving the same.

[Ray]

If I understood you correctly, it is difficult to fool experts, be they wine connoisseurs, camera experts or... investment experts. However, the history is full of failed experts predictions, and this is the latest example (happened today actually):

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is not quite the same issue, Slobodan. You are now talking about the complexities of prediction in human affairs which are always going to be imprecise and sometimes plain wrong as a result of imperfect knowledge.

People who experience an increased pleasure from something simply because it's a more expensive item are in my opinion merely demonstrating a lack of discrimination.

[Colorado David]

However, the history is full of failed experts predictions,[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An expert prediction is entirely different from an expert evaluation.

[brucepercy1]

If anyone can state categorically that their camera makes no difference under any circumstances, then maybe we have something to argue about. Otherwise it's all a matter of proportion and point of view.

Good debate though...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed, it is a good debate, and like everything in life - requires a matter of proportion. As much as I love gear and enjoy buying things, If I got a bigger kick out of buying the gear rather than the thrill of being out there roaming, exploring and participating in the pursuit of a fine image, then I feel I would give up.

Everyone has a different agenda....some folk get enjoyment out of it for gear sake only and that's fine. Others are in it for the final image. Whatever rocks your boat.

My own feeling is that a lot of folk feel they need to get something special in order to 'do' good photography. They don't.  

It's all about being out there and if I lost all my money and possessions tomorrow and could only afford a very old, dated camera, I'd still like to think I'd be out there shooting.

It's something I have to do.

[Colorado David]

I had a colleague, an engineer at a television station, who had the finest of everything he was interested in.  He had top of the line (at the time) Nikon F3 bodies and an enviable selection of lenses.  I never knew him to trip the trigger and he never showed me an image he'd shot.  He was a certified diver and had the best of diving equipment although in the years I knew him, he never went diving.  Likewise he had a beautiful Swiss made table saw that never, as far as I know, made a single cut.  He enjoyed owning his equipment.  He took very good care of everything.  He just never used it for its intended purpose.  For him, the ownership was what brought him fulfillment and not the capabilities it had.  I don't for a second believe that he is the norm in regards to equipment.

[Ray]

I remember well an occasion many years ago when a female colleague in the office, seeing that I was interested in photography, confided in me that her husband had a habit of buying the latest Nikon or Canon camera but never seemed to take any photographs. He just seemed to like playing with the equipment.

I didn't know what to say, really. Couldn't offer any advice.