[Wheatfield]

So, here are some hard facts. I compiled them for your lazy talker's convenience from the 2009 CIPA data which have been published back in April.

My complete analysis is in the appendix.

The summary here:

1. The average dSLR in the US (North America actually) is $455, in Asia it is $592. And Asia buys a larger number of units too
2. Ignoring kit lenses, on average, there is one lens sold per 0.6 bodies, of 90% its average price, making for about 50% of the body market.
3. Body and lens prices have declined up to 20% (Europe). And remained stable in Asia.
4. Asia is now the second market for bodies and third market for lenses, Europe being first and North America being third and second, resp. The US market has declined the most (2009), Asia has grown actually.

So, overall, I would say that 70% of buyers belong into the entry-level dSLR + kit only category. But 30% buy higher up and spend as much for lenses (3 or more) as they do for bodies -- making for the 1.6 average.

I wouldn't call 30% "a few only". It's those 30% which make the camera industry go. It's those 30% which lead the other 70% to move up from P&S at all. It's those 30% which create the revenue.

Esp. as camera prices will decline as soon as technological progress for imaging sensors will slow (which is inevitable) and lens prices will not.


It's the lenses which make a system camera maker float or sink.



P.S.
There are 0.0060 non-kit lenses sold per North American per year. Or 6,000 in a million people city. Or 20 per day. This may give an idea of lenses sold per day and shop. Assuming lenses are kept for 20 years, you need to meet 8 people to meet another lens


[source: CIPA:Interchangeable Lens]


.

Are those buyers purchasing, shall we say, DA LTD lenses or are they buying a telephoto kit lens such as the 50-200 or it's ilk?
This is where my local store says the vast majority of their buyers are, with very few moving towards upscale primes, or any kind of primes at all.

[Wheatfield]

Here's a fact: Every student I know, photography student or otherwise, wants or has a fast 50 for their DSLR. Even if they hardly know a thing about photography or technique. That EF 50mm f1.8 (which gets a worse rap than it deserves here) is a favorite on campus and seems to drive a lot of sales. A friend of mine even ponied up for Oly's 50mm f2 macro so as not to feel too left out!

I present this as a fact, as requested. This is not a hyperbolized anecdote. I am simply stating that every single one I know has a desire for a fast 50. I can't understand how it can be suggested that such a thing is "not wanted" by the market. Perhaps a portion of the market, but to a very important sector of the market lens choices are a big deal.

College students/other young people may not be the largest available market, but they are still an important demographic because, well, the members of Pentax's established market who already know Pentax are not going to be around forever. New buyers have to be brought in.

One was telling me how he was interested in the K-x, but he was concerned over whether or not there was a fast 50 available for it. I assured him that the FA50 would suit him just fine, and since he can afford $250 for the lens easily it worked out fine. Most other students I know in that position would have looked at the $250 price tag and said "screw it, I'm getting a Rebel."

It's an industry-standard product that most buyers who have an intent to actually build a system (the people who will drive lens revenues and eventually buy higher-margin lenses as well) look at when considering a brand. If you can't appeal to them, they buy into another brand, and their money later goes to that brand's higher-profit lenses rather than Pentax's.

Most students will also end up with either a Nikon or Canon, no matter what they start out with.

[falconeye]

Are those buyers purchasing, shall we say, DA LTD lenses or are they buying a telephoto kit lens such as the 50-200 or it's ilk?

How about providing researched data rather than more questions?

BTW, $451 is no 50-200 kit lens on average... Have you read my posting?

[Wheatfield]

How about providing researched data rather than more questions?

BTW, $451 is no 50-200 kit lens on average... Have you read my posting?

I'm just comparing what you wrote to my experience selling cameras and discussing this very subject with my retailer.
My experience makes the numbers you've pulled from the net questionable to say the least.
Of course, it wouldn't take very many high end buyers to skew your 30%, and it would still be in keeping with my experience, which is that the vast majority of buyers are not making it out of the two kit lens stage.

[Blue]

I'm just comparing what you wrote to my experience selling cameras and discussing this very subject with my retailer.
My experience makes the numbers you've pulled from the net questionable to say the least.
Of course, it wouldn't take very many high end buyers to skew your 30%, and it would still be in keeping with my experience, which is that the vast majority of buyers are not making it out of the two kit lens stage.

I think this is a reasonable conjecture given the number of people that go into Bad Buy or Costcrap looking for some sort of camera and end-up with something off the dSLR shelf. They may add some accessory lens then or later from the same or similar store. How many people that own a dSLR go into a B&M or even the web site of a B&M?

Falk: This kind of data isn't as readily available as you think. The people with the best data will be Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc.

[Samsungian]

Here in USA very few Pentax lenses are in Amazon TOP 100

Currently I count... One Pentax lens in Top 100 Amazon



Amazon.com Camera & Photo Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.


Its obvious to me K-x buyers are satisfied with the one or two or three lens kit bundled with the K-x and they need nothing else new from Pentax.

I'd add the bundled K-x lenses are ALL plastic mount, shall I say "Plastic Fantastic" ?

Personally I dislike plastic mount lenses from Canon or Pentax or Nikon.

Aren't the last three of four new lenses from Pentax plastic mount, their "L" Series ?



Maybe Pentax will Plastic mount their entire lens line up ?

[mikemike]

Here in USA very few Pentax lenses are in Amazon TOP 100

Currently I count... One Pentax lens in Top 100 Amazon



Amazon.com Camera & Photo Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.


Its obvious to me K-x buyers are satisfied with the one or two or three lens kit bundled with the K-x and they need nothing else new from Pentax.

I'd add the bundled K-x lenses are ALL plastic mount, shall I say "Plastic Fantastic" ?

Personally I dislike plastic mount lenses from Canon or Pentax or Nikon.

Aren't the last three of four new lenses from Pentax plastic mount, their "L" Series ?



Maybe Pentax will Plastic mount their entire lens line up ?

I think the signal that they are sending with their DAL series is that they are pursuing a larger market share by targeting entry level customers. I think a fast prime kit could be a real winner, it has worked pretty well for panasonic.

I think a kit lens is probably just as profitable or even more profitable than a standalone lens because you have much lower marketing expenses to convince the consumer to buy that extra lens.

---

Last edited by mikemike; 06-03-2010 at 08:06 AM. Reason: submitted too early.

[RBellavance]

I deliberately stayed away from price point

Why ? Can you simply harvest money from the ground in the prairies ? Must be nice !

Where I live, people tend to consider the price when buying stuff (especially expensive toys).

[Aristophanes]

I don't feel that I pay for in-body 'IS' (or actually 'SR' as Pentax puts it) when I buy a new Pentax lens. The DA 35 f/2.8 Macro Limited cost the way it does because it is full metal, it is a macro and it is beautifully crafted.

The Tokina 35 f/2.8 Macro has the same optical construction and it is more expensive than the Pentax. Now, do I pay for "inbody 'IS'" if I pay the extra premium for the Tokina lens in Nikon or Canon mount compared to the Pentax version?

For the money I paid for the DA 35 Macro, I felt it was a bargain. So much quality and feel!

You are precisely the market Pentax wants. Because of that, they will not make cheap primes to try and gain market share.

[Aristophanes]

[/LIST]So, overall, I would say that 70% of buyers belong into the entry-level dSLR + kit only category. But 30% buy higher up and spend as much for lenses (3 or more) as they do for bodies -- making for the 1.6 average.

I wouldn't call 30% "a few only". It's those 30% which make the camera industry go. It's those 30% which lead the other 70% to move up from P&S at all. It's those 30% which create the revenue.

Esp. as camera prices will decline as soon as technological progress for imaging sensors will slow (which is inevitable) and lens prices will not.


It's the lenses which make a system camera maker float or sink.


[source: CIPA:Interchangeable Lens]


.

I completely agree (and have never disagreed, and have read CIPA, though through Bloomberg terminal summary).

Look at the user profiles here and their sig gear lists, and you see a failry substantial curve of LBA. So of that 30%, in the absence of hard data, I'd say maybe half get the "fast 50" as lens #2 or 3, and then the LBA crowd accumulate lenses out of both necessity and fetish.

It's likely 1,2,3....many.

The pro crowd and the LBA prosumer absolutely drive margins, but that 70% drive gross revenues. Canikon have the market share to easily leverage one for the other; not Pentax.

Would a cheap 28-50 array make Pentax more attractive? It might, but it would kill the bottom line. They would have to issue the lenses to compete against their legacy glass (the $90 A50/1.7) and would cannibalize their DA35, 40, 55 sales. If lenses is where they make their $$$, why sell a lower cost lens for tiny marginal increases in their brand consumer base, when making a colourful K-x is a more viable solution to staying market share relevant? (And it may be part of the puzzle, but the presence of inexpensive 35 primes for Canikon is not what got them their market share dominance in the first place).

Would you rather have a plastic mount Nikon 35/1.8 equivalent and an unprofitable Pentax, or a DA 35 Macro and a profitable Pentax? No easy choices for the forum members here, but Pentax has made theirs.

I might also point out that Nikon rumours (Nikon Rumors) has one going of a new Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 for $1,700. Makes the 31 Ltd a bargain.

[mikemike]

Would you rather have a plastic mount Nikon 35/1.8 equivalent and an unprofitable Pentax, or a DA 35 Macro and a profitable Pentax? No easy choices for the forum members here, but Pentax has made theirs.

I might also point out that Nikon rumours (Nikon Rumors) has one going of a new Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 for $1,700. Makes the 31 Ltd a bargain.

Fulfilling demand for low priced lenses doesn't kill demand or profitability for better lenses. In fact, it lets canon differentiate their lenses and make the better ones even more profitable.

50mm/1.8 - $100
50mm/1.4 - $350
50mm/1.2 - $1500

You might end up going through three 1.8 lenses over the life of a 1.4 making it a bit of a wash, but at least you have the option of trying without committing huge amounts of money.

[Blue]

Fulfilling demand for low priced lenses doesn't kill demand or profitability for better lenses. In fact, it lets canon differentiate their lenses and make the better ones even more profitable.

50mm/1.8 - $100
50mm/1.4 - $350
50mm/1.2 - $1500

You might end up going through three 1.8 lenses over the life of a 1.4 making it a bit of a wash, but at least you have the option of trying without committing huge amounts of money.

Pentax would have to sell a plastic mount lens to about 90% of their dSLR user base for it to net any kind of profit. It would more than likely be a break even venture. Most people new to dSLR tend to be 'sold' on zooms out of the box and that's what the goober at Bad Buy pushes.

I don't think people with any kind of serious intentions want to try out a crap lens to see if they want to move up to a good one. Trying out a Plasti-Tax 50mm f1.8 to see if you want to move up to a FA 43mm f1.9 ltd would be like test driving a Pinto to decide on buying a Mustang Saleen later.

Edit: I'm not buying into the notion that Pentax should develop a 50mm lens lesser than the FA 50mm f1.4/1.7. That would be going backwards. What's next, plastic elements?

[Aristophanes]

Fulfilling demand for low priced lenses doesn't kill demand or profitability for better lenses. In fact, it lets canon differentiate their lenses and make the better ones even more profitable.

50mm/1.8 - $100
50mm/1.4 - $350
50mm/1.2 - $1500

You might end up going through three 1.8 lenses over the life of a 1.4 making it a bit of a wash, but at least you have the option of trying without committing huge amounts of money.

Every 1.8 sold will take $100 away from the sale of the other 2 options. Do it enough and so few 1.4's and 1.2's will be sold as to force their assembly lines to close permanently. Especially true as most people will shop by price and the 1.8 will be "close enough" to meet 70% of the market's expectations. To serve all 3 segments, you need a much vaster market; you need to be Canikon. This opportunity cost behaviour only spreads the same pool of $$ around and by itself will not make the revenue pool larger.

The demand for low price primes is met by legacy glass on this forum, KEH, eBay, flea markets, etc. That's always been a selling point of the k-mount and in-body SR. New primes are a premium, revenue-generating product. Pentax requires high-price primes to make the same money as Canikon does by selling lots of lower price primes.

[er1kksen]

Most students will also end up with either a Nikon or Canon, no matter what they start out with.

Obviously. They're the market leaders. Most people end up with Nikon or Canon, period. That's not a debate point.

My point was that out of those who do start out with Pentax more of them will stay with Pentax if they have affordable lens options to expand their systems with, and eventually be in a position to buy the higher-margin lenses. As it is a lot of them say "if I can sell this Pentax to my buddy I can buy a cheap rebel and a fast 50 for less than the FA50 would cost me." There you go, one less potential glass-buyer, and Pentax gets a rap as the brand you grow out of.

Not to mention more of them will consider Pentax in the first place (the lack of a cheap 50 doesn't help Pentax sell bodies when every photography professor tells their students to get a fast 50 for their DSLRs).

[kevinschoenmakers]

Aaaand just today another one of my friends has bought a cheap 50mm lens (the Canon).