[Wheatfield]

im in dilemma as cheaper and more econ alternative like 50mm f1.8 may be released after i buy a FA50mm.

And here friends, is what Pentax is up against.
A user base that will only buy what is cheap, not what is good.
Ah well, they brought it onto themselves by catering to this attitude in the first place.

[PrimeObjectif]

And here friends, is what Pentax is up against.
A user base that will only buy what is cheap, not what is good.
Ah well, they brought it onto themselves by catering to this attitude in the first place.

Every brand except the "boutique" brands like Leica have a sh*tload of customers like that. You think all those D40 owners are paying for quality lenses? :ugh:

[Wheatfield]

Every brand except the "boutique" brands like Leica have a sh*tload of customers like that. You think all those D40 owners are paying for quality lenses? :ugh:

And just what the hell do you think Pentax is at this point?

[raz]

I don't like the way pentax lens prices have gone up in the past few years. When I went into Pentax, there were some great lenses at resonable prices. Now that is not true anymore.

In my opinion, the lens prices of pentax and other competitors are extremely overpriced and they are making money on behalf of our stupidity. They are not made from gold, they are not unique like an Enzo Ferraris build in limited numbers, they are not perfect, so it doesn't justify the enormous prices of some lenses.

If the 50 f/1.4 was around 170 $ a few years ago , you cannot tell me that the 55 f/1.4 ( 639$ ) is 4 times better than it. I will not "eat" this......

The same goes for the Pentax 12-24. Is double the prices compared to the tokina one for nikon even if they share the same opticals. So you cannot tell me the tokina is selling their lens under profit margin because I don't believe it.

Most likely pentax, nikon, canon, sony and other have very very big profit to "build cost" ratio and they expect that the fanboys like us to buy their overipriced lenses. And I find this insulting especially as Pentax, Sony or Olympus users are mostly amateurs and usually don't make money out of their photography like the canon/nikon ones.

[Blue]

Raz, not only is the price of the DA* 55mm that much more than the FA 50, its also SDM only which means it won't work on my MZ-3! The FA is my standard lens on that body. I've been contemplating the 43mm.

[thibs]

And I find this insulting especially as Pentax, Sony or Olympus users are mostly amateurs and usually don't make money out of their photography like the canon/nikon ones.

Nikon, I dunno, but Canon makes money in a LOT of other areas unlinked to photography. Pentax has photography and health care to make money and NOTHING else.

Canon can sell scanners, printers, copiers and whatever SOHO hardware to make money.

[jbinpg]

@thibs - I'm surprised you don't know this, Thibs:

Astronomy Optics by Pentax Sport Optics

[Wheatfield]

And I find this insulting especially as Pentax, Sony or Olympus users are mostly amateurs and usually don't make money out of their photography like the canon/nikon ones.

Here's a little secret you may not know: Most professional photographers don't make a hell of a lot of money.
Some do, most do not.
The average amateur photographer working an office job in middle management will have a heck of a lot more disposable income to put into camera equipment than the average pro photographer, even taking into account that they can write their gear off while the doctor or lawyer don't get to do that.

I'm sure we would all like to think that most pro photographers have thousand dollar day rates, but the fact is, most work at a very low income range.

[Rondec]

Here's a little secret you may not know: Most professional photographers don't make a hell of a lot of money.
Some do, most do not.
The average amateur photographer working an office job in middle management will have a heck of a lot more disposable income to put into camera equipment than the average pro photographer, even taking into account that they can write their gear off while the doctor or lawyer don't get to do that.

I'm sure we would all like to think that most pro photographers have thousand dollar day rates, but the fact is, most work at a very low income range.

I am not sure why people have the impression that professional photographers have lots of excess cash to throw around on equipment. Average income for professional photographers is about 29,000 a year and 60 percent make less than 43000 dollars (this is in the US).

In my area (admittedly quite rural), most of the photographers shoot with Canon -- either 20D or 40D. Their lenses are quite old and they don't buy new equipment unless they absolutely need it. Certainly none are running out to buy D3x's or even full frame equipment.

My impression is that most of the upper end equipment is sold to wealthy amateurs.

[Blue]

Nikon, I dunno, but Canon makes money in a LOT of other areas unlinked to photography. Pentax has photography and health care to make money and NOTHING else.

Canon can sell scanners, printers, copiers and whatever SOHO hardware to make money.

That is not a guarantee of long term sustainability etc. Otherwise, Konica-Minolta wouldn't have shut down the camera factory and let Sony have it.

[ixian]

I don't like the way pentax lens prices have gone up in the past few years. When I went into Pentax, there were some great lenses at resonable prices. Now that is not true anymore.

In my opinion, the lens prices of pentax and other competitors are extremely overpriced and they are making money on behalf of our stupidity. They are not made from gold, they are not unique like an Enzo Ferraris build in limited numbers, they are not perfect, so it doesn't justify the enormous prices of some lenses.

If the 50 f/1.4 was around 170 $ a few years ago , you cannot tell me that the 55 f/1.4 ( 639$ ) is 4 times better than it. I will not "eat" this......

The same goes for the Pentax 12-24. Is double the prices compared to the tokina one for nikon even if they share the same opticals. So you cannot tell me the tokina is selling their lens under profit margin because I don't believe it.

Most likely pentax, nikon, canon, sony and other have very very big profit to "build cost" ratio and they expect that the fanboys like us to buy their overipriced lenses. And I find this insulting especially as Pentax, Sony or Olympus users are mostly amateurs and usually don't make money out of their photography like the canon/nikon ones.

Aren't you overreacting a bit? Amateurs don't make money on their photography - well, exactly. It's not like we, amateurs, really need that latest and greatest lenses or cameras to stay competitive. For us, they are toys, nothing more. I really can't see any problems with not being able to afford toys... It's not pleasant, sure, but it's not something I really, absolutely NEED, right?
Save up a bit, buy second hand, whatever, but you can't expect camera manufacturers to lower their prices, just because some amateurs can't afford the stuff...

[raz]

Here's a little secret you may not know: Most professional photographers don't make a hell of a lot of money.
Some do, most do not.
The average amateur photographer working an office job in middle management will have a heck of a lot more disposable income to put into camera equipment than the average pro photographer, even taking into account that they can write their gear off while the doctor or lawyer don't get to do that.

I'm sure we would all like to think that most pro photographers have thousand dollar day rates, but the fact is, most work at a very low income range.

This is not the point. They need the equipment to get the jobs done and their equipment will bring them money.

On the other hand how can a Pentax amateur photograph explains to himself and his wife that he just bought a 55mm with 650$ ?! A lens that will not bring him any money and who is optically not to great compared to the FA 50 who was 3 or 4 cheaper.

Aren't you overreacting a bit? Amateurs don't make money on their photography - well, exactly. It's not like we, amateurs, really need that latest and greatest lenses or cameras to stay competitive. For us, they are toys, nothing more. I really can't see any problems with not being able to afford toys... It's not pleasant, sure, but it's not something I really, absolutely NEED, right?
Save up a bit, buy second hand, whatever, but you can't expect camera manufacturers to lower their prices, just because some amateurs can't afford the stuff...

Well, yes maybe I'm overreacting...but how should I feel when I see the 12-24 is twice as expensive at is should be (see the tokina), when the FA 50 has doubled in price in over 3 years and it will be cancelled, when the 16-50 and 50-135 increased their prices as well and so on.

[Wheatfield]

I am not sure why people have the impression that professional photographers have lots of excess cash to throw around on equipment. Average income for professional photographers is about 29,000 a year and 60 percent make less than 43000 dollars (this is in the US).

In my area (admittedly quite rural), most of the photographers shoot with Canon -- either 20D or 40D. Their lenses are quite old and they don't buy new equipment unless they absolutely need it. Certainly none are running out to buy D3x's or even full frame equipment.

My impression is that most of the upper end equipment is sold to wealthy amateurs.

The studio that I fart around at is, at the moment, up to date in that they actually have a Nikon D3, but this was quite a recent acquisition.
They are using a mix of Nikons and Canons, I think there is a D300, a couple of D200s, I believe a Canon 20D and a Pentax K20 that I loaned one of the photographers so that she would have a camera.
They are still using Nikon D70s for some projects that they can be used for.

I think this is a lot closer to the norm than the urban myth that pro photographers have an equipment tree in the back yard that grows whatever they want.

The high end camera market is almost exclusively high end amateurs who want the very best. Whether or not they'll be using it at it's capabilities is moot, in much the same way that most SUV drivers never get off paved roads.

[Wheatfield]

On the other hand how can a Pentax amateur photograph explains to himself and his wife that he just bought a 55mm with 650$ ?! A lens that will not bring him any money and who is optically not to great compared to the FA 50 who was 3 or 4 cheaper.

This is the nature of hobbies.
How can a hobby photographer explain to his wife that he just dropped 10k or more on a Leica M system?
How can he explain to his wife that he just dropped 3 or 4 k on a Nikon D3?

Hobbies don't require justification. You either have the discretionary income to practice your hobby the way you want to, or you find a way to find the discretionary income to do what you want to do, or you live with a certain level of unhappiness.

The professional OTOH, has to come up with a business plan and has to justify the new equipment acquisition based on an income model.

This is where amateurs and professionals diverge, and it is why the bulk of what we consider "pro" equipment is actually sold to well heeled amateur photographers.
The amateur only needs to ask two questions:
1) Do I want it.
2) Can I afford it.

If both answers are yes, then the justification is made, and the purchase happens.

[Aristophanes]

Well, yes maybe I'm overreacting...but how should I feel when I see the 12-24 is twice as expensive at is should be (see the tokina), when the FA 50 has doubled in price in over 3 years and it will be cancelled, when the 16-50 and 50-135 increased their prices as well and so on.

You simply canot use the last 3 years of financial crisis and currency turmoil as a benchmark. The credit crunch (happening agains in Europe right now BTW) forced companies to dump existing stock at a loss to get cash to pay the electric bill, something credit channels would not cover.

From late 2007 to mid-2009 prices were wonky in all sectors: base materials, agriculture, oil, and manufactured items like cameras and lenses. It was a mass sell-off.

Right now the Yen is severely overvalued and the German Euro undervalued, meaning that Japanese company products are expensive. Worse any company that is leveraged (Hoya) has to make returns to shareholders bar nothing as a hedge against deflation. You will pay extra for Japanese manufactured products until this self-corrects (well, when the Japanese pension crisis implodes).