Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-16-2020, 01:02 AM - 1 Like   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,719
Makers killing the value segment: lens sales history

Get rid of the value shoppers. Force buyers into expensive luxury lens stuff. No wonder people are reluctant to buy into FF equipment.



Basically we are back to 2007, with better value APSC lenses and worse value FF offerings.

Attached Images
 
10-16-2020, 04:18 AM - 2 Likes   #2
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,280
I don't worry about modern glass. Takes me too much time to save up for even a mid range range lens when I can get ten great legacy lenses for the same amount.
10-16-2020, 04:26 AM - 1 Like   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,216
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Basically we are back to 2007, with better value APSC lenses and worse value FF offerings.
I wonder if this might be partly because there haven't been many truly new APS-C lenses in the last five years - hence most available models have been around for some time and prices have gradually fallen to encourage on-going sales. By comparison, there have been many new FF lenses, and they haven't yet been subject to the same fall in pricing...

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-16-2020 at 04:48 AM.
10-16-2020, 05:05 AM   #4
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,126
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I wonder if this might be partly because there haven't been many truly new APS-C lenses in the last five years - hence most available models have been around for some time and prices have gradually fallen to encourage on-going sales. By comparison, there have been many new FF lenses, and they haven't yet been subject to the same fall in pricing...
I don’t know about other manufacturers, but Pentax lately has produced some big “perfect” “FF” lenses - like the DFA 50 f/1.4, that are pricey by definition. If I would go into “FF”, I would look for less expensive legacy lenses for at least some of my ‘needs’.

10-16-2020, 06:09 AM - 2 Likes   #5
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,183
There is a reason that modern FF lenses are expensive: sensors with lots and lots of pixels. This makes it possible to peep at pixels in great detail. The classics of yesteryear do not do well in this scenario. Then there is the color thing. Film emulsions need different color characteristics from digital sensors. So a clean sheet design is required.

If you compare the D FA 50mm f/1.4 to the old school M 50mm f/1.4 the contrast is striking. Fifteen elements in nine groups versus seven elements in six groups. A mass of 910g (ouch!) versus 235g. Filter diameter 72mm versus 49mm. Dimensions 80x106mm versus 63x37mm. The price differs by a factor of about ten.

If you are willing to work within the limitations with the character of the old timers you will be OK. Otherwise you make your choice and you pay your money. The big players might bring out value FF lenses but at at the moment they are too busy designing new glass for their latest mirrorless wonders. As for Pentax, the world is ready for a new FF 50mm f/2 lens. Time will tell.
10-16-2020, 06:37 AM - 2 Likes   #6
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,126
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
There is a reason that modern FF lenses are expensive: sensors with lots and lots of pixels. This makes it possible to peep at pixels in great detail. The classics of yesteryear do not do well in this scenario. Then there is the color thing. Film emulsions need different color characteristics from digital sensors. So a clean sheet design is required.

If you compare the D FA 50mm f/1.4 to the old school M 50mm f/1.4 the contrast is striking. Fifteen elements in nine groups versus seven elements in six groups. A mass of 910g (ouch!) versus 235g. Filter diameter 72mm versus 49mm. Dimensions 80x106mm versus 63x37mm. The price differs by a factor of about ten.

If you are willing to work within the limitations with the character of the old timers you will be OK. Otherwise you make your choice and you pay your money. The big players might bring out value FF lenses but at at the moment they are too busy designing new glass for their latest mirrorless wonders. As for Pentax, the world is ready for a new FF 50mm f/2 lens. Time will tell.
There is also a change in standards - corner-to-corner sharpness seems to be valued by more users than it used to be.
10-16-2020, 06:46 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,367
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
There is a reason that modern FF lenses are expensive: sensors with lots and lots of pixels. This makes it possible to peep at pixels in great detail. The classics of yesteryear do not do well in this scenario. Then there is the color thing. Film emulsions need different color characteristics from digital sensors. So a clean sheet design is required.

If you compare the D FA 50mm f/1.4 to the old school M 50mm f/1.4 the contrast is striking. Fifteen elements in nine groups versus seven elements in six groups. A mass of 910g (ouch!) versus 235g. Filter diameter 72mm versus 49mm. Dimensions 80x106mm versus 63x37mm. The price differs by a factor of about ten.

If you are willing to work within the limitations with the character of the old timers you will be OK. Otherwise you make your choice and you pay your money. The big players might bring out value FF lenses but at at the moment they are too busy designing new glass for their latest mirrorless wonders. As for Pentax, the world is ready for a new FF 50mm f/2 lens. Time will tell.
Honestly, the big thing is that people are trying to get medium format quality out of full frame cameras. I don't know that this is truly possible, but it certainly takes really, really good optics. If you are comparing the DFA *50 and 85 and 70-200 with the cost of medium format lenses, there isn't nearly the same sticker shock.
10-16-2020, 06:58 AM - 1 Like   #8
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,935
The older cheaper designs are still in the catalogue. It's been there done that situation. How much "value" do you need?

10-16-2020, 06:59 AM   #9
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,275
Theory is that market pressures force prices and high cost offerings down due to low ROI. Pandering to the luxury/true pro market is a niche and too many players bodes poorly for all.


Steve
10-16-2020, 07:01 AM - 6 Likes   #10
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,434
The physics and economics of both silicon and glass mean that FF will always be quite a bit more expensive than APS-C. FF takes 2.25X the amount of silicon wafer space as APS-C and 3.4X as much glass. Then the higher megapixel numbers of FF add costs due to lower production yields of the sensors and increase in the required CPU power and memory inside the camera. Next, any anyone paying more for an FF body is also going to expect better IQ than they got with APS-C. But covering a high megapixel FF format with better pixel-peeper corner-to-corner sharpness compared to APS-C takes mores sophisticated lens designs. When matched on performance levels, FF cameras and lenses will always be more expensive that APS-C equipment.

As has been vigorously discussed in many threads here, there's very little that FF can do that APS-C can't do. Sure, the DoF is a little shallower on FF, the dynamic range is a little wider, and the print sizes are a little bigger but these factors affect a minuscule fraction of photographs and photographers. FF is a "want" (not a "need") and that makes FF a luxury (not a an essential). If a person wants to make great photographs without spending a lot of money, APS-C is the way to go.

FF will never be price competitive with APS-C and that all but forces camera makers to segment their offerings. They make APS-C products for the price-sensitive and FF products for the price-insensitive.
10-16-2020, 07:03 AM   #11
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,275
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The older cheaper designs are still in the catalogue. It's been there done that situation. How much "value" do you need?
Based on the comments by many on this site, it would appear that many would be quite happy with f/2.8 wide angles and f/4 teles having excellent as opposed to steller qualities. As you point out, that class of optic has historically been available at quite accessible pricing.


Steve
10-16-2020, 08:22 AM - 3 Likes   #12
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,340
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Get rid of the value shoppers. Force buyers into expensive luxury lens stuff. No wonder people are reluctant to buy into FF equipment.



Basically we are back to 2007, with better value APSC lenses and worse value FF offerings.
"Value shoppers" are generally bad for the bottom line, especially in the camera marketplace where thy buy a cheap camera body, a kit lens or two and are done. In order for a company to make anything off of "value shoppers", sales numbers have to be very high.
With smart phones making serious inroads into the value segment (read cheap and cheerful cameras and lenses), the low end segment is dying off. As sales volumes drop, the segment becomes less and less viable.
At some point, manufacturers have to stop serving money losing markets.
10-16-2020, 08:38 AM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,989
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The physics and economics of both silicon and glass mean that FF will always be quite a bit more expensive than APS-C. FF takes 2.25X the amount of silicon wafer space as APS-C and 3.4X as much glass. Then the higher megapixel numbers of FF add costs due to lower production yields of the sensors and increase in the required CPU power and memory inside the camera.
Where does the 3.4x glass number come from? This doesn't seem to follow the real marketplace where the size and complexity of higher quality apsc vs ff isn't a massive delta. Is eager the lack of apsc focus by Nikon and Canon is more to blame than anything. Fuji in particular seems to out out premium apsc lenses that are as complex as their ff cousins.
10-16-2020, 08:40 AM - 1 Like   #14
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,935
QuoteQuote:
FF will never be price competitive with APS-C and that all but forces camera makers to segment their offerings. They make APS-C products for the price-sensitive and FF products for the price-insensitive.
My FF lenses, DFA 28-105, DFA 100 macro, DA*55 1.4, DA*200 2.8, FA 50 macro 2.8, FA 50 1.7. There is good value FF glass in the catalogue. Those lenses are top performers.

I know people can spend a lot more, but adding lenses like my Sigma 24 macro and Rokinon 14 2.8 I don't feel I'm suffering in any way.

The only difference now is if I decide I want better, I can spend the big bucks and obtain it.

Last edited by normhead; 10-16-2020 at 08:50 AM.
10-16-2020, 08:55 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,841
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
My FF lenses, DFA 28-105, DFA 100 macro, DA*55 1.4, DA*200 2.8, FA 50 macro 2.8, FA 50 1.7. There is good value FF glass in the catalogue. Those lenses are top performers.

I know people can spend a lot more, but adding new lenses like my Sigma 24 macro and Rokinon 14 2.8 I don't feel I'm suffering in any way.

The only difference now is if I decide I want better, I can spend the big bucks and obtain it.
I'd add the HD update of the FA 35/2. Heck, if you truly want value at any cost... I got a copy of the PLM last week (for under 200€ shipped and barely used I couldn't say no ) and it's good enough for what I need it to do, even if it forces some cropping.

---------- Post added 10-16-20 at 08:59 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The physics and economics of both silicon and glass mean that FF will always be quite a bit more expensive than APS-C. FF takes 2.25X the amount of silicon wafer space as APS-C and 3.4X as much glass. Then the higher megapixel numbers of FF add costs due to lower production yields of the sensors and increase in the required CPU power and memory inside the camera. Next, any anyone paying more for an FF body is also going to expect better IQ than they got with APS-C. But covering a high megapixel FF format with better pixel-peeper corner-to-corner sharpness compared to APS-C takes mores sophisticated lens designs. When matched on performance levels, FF cameras and lenses will always be more expensive that APS-C equipment.

As has been vigorously discussed in many threads here, there's very little that FF can do that APS-C can't do. Sure, the DoF is a little shallower on FF, the dynamic range is a little wider, and the print sizes are a little bigger but these factors affect a minuscule fraction of photographs and photographers. FF is a "want" (not a "need") and that makes FF a luxury (not a an essential). If a person wants to make great photographs without spending a lot of money, APS-C is the way to go.

FF will never be price competitive with APS-C and that all but forces camera makers to segment their offerings. They make APS-C products for the price-sensitive and FF products for the price-insensitive.
I'd even go as far to say that anything over 1" (okay, maybe over M4/3) is burgeoisie (and I'm not letting that K-1 go )

Last edited by Serkevan; 10-16-2020 at 09:00 AM.
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!
aps-c, camera, fa, ff, glass, lens, lenses, macro, megapixel, photo industry, photographs, photography, products, value
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony Camera Division and all EP&S segment moving outward beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 44 04-03-2020 05:52 AM
mirrorless sales down -14.8% in units and -19.1% in value beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 166 07-10-2019 01:19 PM
What the history of camera sales looks like with Smartphones included monochrome General Photography 12 04-10-2015 09:12 PM
"What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." jolepp General Talk 7 05-19-2012 09:38 AM
I got multi-segment metering on an M42 lens--how?! MobiusOne Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 11-29-2011 08:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 PM. | 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