Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-25-2012, 10:17 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
I have shipped well over 100 million products around the world over the years
Superman! I take it many of those 100 million products you shipped where grouped together as one shipment.

If you shipped one product every minute, it would take you 190 years to ship 100E6 products.


Last edited by tuco; 10-25-2012 at 10:51 AM.
10-25-2012, 10:28 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by ironlionzion Quote
Furthermore, I never mentioned the costs of manufacturing. I mentioned the price of the cameras. Pricing and manufacturing cost are very different....there is a reason why some companies are able to earn large margins on their products, while some are forced to price their units at cost.

Business do not thrive by solely pricing products with respect to manufacturing cost. So many other factors are considered. Certainly, in a competitive market, they are correlated.
Thank you for that insight. I believe that you are kind, genuine, and sincere, but... really?

My eldest son is 8... this might be an answer I'd be happy with at 12-13.

My 8 year old also plays DrawSomething (supervised) with many (I suppose) adults in addition to his friends. They are often unaware that they are playing with an artistic child. It is still fun for all parties.
10-25-2012, 10:37 AM   #33
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
I'm sure you're not ignorant in many other areas. I have shipped well over 100 million products around the world over the years (many of which I was in charge of design and engineering), so I have a pretty good understanding of production issues, costs, and margins dependent on product category, hype, or lack-of, branding, marketing, etc, etc.
I have no doubt you know much about productions issues and costs. But again, the pricing department of every company is separate from the manufacturing department. Product pricing relies on many more inputs other than just the manufacturing cost. But I understand your point - that most likely products will not be priced below cost (some exceptions).

QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
The reason I replied to your post is not that you said a FF could be US$1K; it certainly can and will be at some point. The reason is you said that an APS-C DSLR could be US$200. That is just such incredible tosh, that it needed calling-out. A single lens reflex mechanism costs LABOUR to create. Electronics gets cheaper, labour does NOT. You might be interested in reading about Baumol's Cost Disease.
Like I said, the $200 statement was somewhat of an exaggeration to get to my main point that - no matter how low in price MF goes, there will always be cheaper options in the smaller formats, and that a cost benefit analysis to individuals will always apply.

I bought my Pentax Kx new from Amazon with the 18-55 and 50-200 for $550. I don't see it as tooooo far of a stretch for a $200 APS-C DSLR in the future. Perhaps, we'd lose out on build quality. If FF goes down to 1k, then something must happen to push down APS-C prices to a competitive point. I mean, look at the compact digital camera market. Pressure from smartphone cameras has pushed down prices on budget compacts to sub $100. Sure, there are a few high end compacts like the S110, G12, and LX7, etc which command a higher price point, but the point still remains.

Right now you state that the SLR mechanism takes labor to make. I totally agree with you. But the awesome thing about competition is that it forces companies and individuals to innovate. This is purely speculative, but today it may seem like a waste to develop cheaper manufacturing costs for the SLR mechanism, but perhaps in the future, if prices drop fast on FF, companies will have no choice but to innovate or give up the product line.

We're already seeing a large move to mirrorless. I love my optical viewfinder (I really want bright, large FF VF), but perhaps in the future that will be a "luxury" in a cheap APS-C line dominated by mirrorless.
10-25-2012, 10:43 AM   #34
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Thank you for that insight. I believe that you are kind, genuine, and sincere, but... really? My eldest son is 8... this might be an answer I'd be happy with at 12-13.
I mean, you criticized my lack of understanding of manufacturing costs. So I had to point out that I said nothing of manufacturing costs. I'm not really sure where you're going with that.

10-25-2012, 10:47 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Superman! I take it many of those 100 million products you shipped where grouped together as one shipment.
If you shipped one product every minute, it would take you 190 years to ship 100E6 products.
How many people in the world, and how many products do they purchase a day? At peak pre-Christmas periods we were manufacturing 400,000 products per week. That is circa 40 units a minute versus your one hypothesis.

This is coming out of a "smaller" factory. The larger ones are doing ridiculous volume.

My well over 100M is a drop in the ocean. Tiny, tiny, drop.

Obviously these are going out in volume. Take the time to look to your left to see where I live.

My smaller items may fit 100,000 units in a High Cube container, whereas for my larger items, I may get less than 800.

I appreciate how you don't know from your different standpoint, and are ill-informed to comment on reality. I'm not Superman, and you are not Supermoron (otherwise I have wasted a little time).
10-25-2012, 11:06 AM   #36
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
Again, unsinkable, you may be completely correct that APS-C will never hit $200. Neither of us know for sure. Past examples have shown that price decreases at top models is a sign that lower end models will decrease as well. To what point is unclear. But you missed the whole point of my comment, which was arguing against Ogl's statement that there is "no need for FF" if MF hits 3k. Ogl has been posting comment after comment, thread after thread about how FF is a marketing scam and is useless. I just wanted to come in and say that, in the future, if MF hit the price point that FF is currently at, most likely FF and APS-C prices will also drop. The general trade off between price and format will most likely exist in the future.
10-25-2012, 11:32 AM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
I appreciate how you don't know from your different standpoint, and are ill-informed to comment on reality. I'm not Superman, and you are not Supermoron (otherwise I have wasted a little time).
The bottom line is you don't ship anything. Someone else does is my point. I wouldn't claim I shipped any product from the large commercial aircraft company I work for where us engineers are a dime a dozen even if it was possible to be the said owner of such a company. I would say "we", "us" or "our".


Last edited by tuco; 10-25-2012 at 11:50 AM.
10-25-2012, 02:36 PM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
My idea is that popular MF camera for USD3000 (it's the wish, 4000-5000 USD is more real) is more attractive than FF.
I suspect the price of $3000 is closer to the price you can expect for Pentax FF camera than any MF Digital...
I believe the sensor alone cost $3500.....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 10-25-2012 at 02:43 PM.
10-25-2012, 02:42 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
A 24MP on a FF 35mm is already needing fast shutter speeds, or a tripod, or image stabilization to get it sharp zooming in 200% or 400%. Imagine walking around doing handheld shots with a 50MP MFD that might have to sacrifice IS to make it small. Many won't look much better than a FF 35mm at that point if there is some blur, I feel.

Actually, Pentax have introduced optical IS in their MF line....
10-25-2012, 02:51 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Electronics gets cheaper, labour does NOT. You might be interested in reading about Baumol's Cost Disease.

The cost difference between digital formats used to be primarily sensor cost. Now that is partly true, but far less-so. In future, far, far, less so. It is a price gulf enjoyed and exploited by the camera makers, and one they hope they can artificially carry for as long as possible.
As I understand it chips are getting cheaper cause you can cram more into smaller and smaller units hence increasing performance and reduce cost. For sensors, like FF, we are talking about a fixed size and price is fixed too unless a breakthrough in manufacturing. Eg FF sensors cost the same now as 3-5 years ago.
10-25-2012, 06:40 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
As I understand it chips are getting cheaper cause you can cram more into smaller and smaller units hence increasing performance and reduce cost. For sensors, like FF, we are talking about a fixed size and price is fixed too unless a breakthrough in manufacturing. Eg FF sensors cost the same now as 3-5 years ago.
While you are obviously correct that the physical size hasn't changed, there are other factors such as increased fab capacity, increased competition, improved processes, improved yields etc that have changed. A FF sensor is cheaper now than it was 3-5 years ago.
10-25-2012, 07:06 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The bottom line is you don't ship anything. Someone else does is my point. I wouldn't claim I shipped any product from the large commercial aircraft company I work for where us engineers are a dime a dozen even if it was possible to be the said owner of such a company. I would say "we", "us" or "our".
Seeing as I paid the relevant factory to have the goods manufactured, paid for the goods to be independently inspected, and then paid the shipping company to ship them, then yes, I most certainly did ship it.

I get the whole we/group hug/borg/we're in it together/team thing in large companies. Everyone needs to be made to feel that they are appreciated. In a smaller organisation that top-down link is much closer and takes a more personal dynamic.
10-25-2012, 10:31 PM   #43
ogl
Banned




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sankt Peterburg
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,382
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I suspect the price of $3000 is closer to the price you can expect for Pentax FF camera than any MF Digital...
I believe the sensor alone cost $3500.....
CCD - maybe...But I doubt.
10-26-2012, 04:57 AM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
While you are obviously correct that the physical size hasn't changed, there are other factors such as increased fab capacity, increased competition, improved processes, improved yields etc that have changed. A FF sensor is cheaper now than it was 3-5 years ago.

Perhaps, but the cameras ain't in spite of being cheaper made (6D; D600)
10-26-2012, 05:02 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by ironlionzion Quote
Why is there so much nonsense on these forums about APS-C and digital MF being the holy grails of IQ while stating (falsely) that FF is a marketing scam.

It's popping up so often that people are actually starting to believe it.

FF is just the intermediate of the two....nothing more...nothing less.

Have you read another forums than I have?
I have the opposite impression; that FF is the holy grail.

Anyway, I have some sympathies with ogl's point that film formats may not be the ideal formats for digital. In an ideal world I would prefer APS and MF Digital. Unfortunately, the latter is too expensive for me, in spite of owning four 645 lenses from 33mm to 300mm. FF may be a good compromise provided it at least 36mp.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, ff, film, format, lenses, medium format camera, mf, photo, photo industry, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photokina 2012: Leica presents its new S medium format camera jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 5 09-21-2012 01:45 AM
Which medium format (film) camera for handheld use? noctilux Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 27 01-25-2012 02:52 PM
PENTAX 645D Medium Format Digital SLR Camera Wins EISA Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 3 10-05-2011 07:39 AM
medium format lens on as-c camera eigelb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 12-21-2009 12:50 PM
A DIY medium format camera! ve2vfd General Talk 2 11-03-2009 07:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top