[Barry Pearson]

We buy these stupid things because we cannot stand the thought of ourselves not having it while that dumb ass next door has one while him having no clues as to how to use it.

We are suckers for it.

Speak for yourself! You don't speak for me.

[Clavius]

Gee, you guys aren't getting it, man.

For ordinary consumers, unlike nerdy people like us who have nothing better to do other than to frequent camera brand forum sites, it has nothing to do with their needs. If a neighbor gets a FF and the price point is doable, the other guy simply cannot resist not buying FF. That was how DSLR got itself established in the market place, despite the fact that there were plenty of capable P&S. It is not about IQ or how pretty the pictures are going to be. Size also have nothing to do with it. It is about what the next guy has that you don't. Reading many posts here, I even think that it is more about looking cool and unique, rather than pursuing the ultimate picture quality (btw there is nothing wrong w dat).

Current line up of DSLRs by all brands are a complete overkill for most of us.

We buy these stupid things because we cannot stand the thought of ourselves not having it while that dumb ass next door has one while him having no clues as to how to use it.

We are suckers for it.

This is so true, however, this "rule" doesn't restrict itself to amateurs alone! People who make their money with photography suffer from it even more. Because (A) they have the ultimate excuse to buy gear. (B) It stings even more when an amateur is using better gear then you as a "pro".

[Andi Lo]

This is so true, however, this "rule" doesn't restrict itself to amateurs alone! People who make their money with photography suffer from it even more. Because (A) they have the ultimate excuse to buy gear. (B) It stings even more when an amateur is using better gear then you as a "pro".

Ouch, reading that really kinda hurt

I try my best to surpress gear envy whenever I see some of the engineering new graduates tout a D800 (which I can't afford), saying that my gear already does what I want

[Fontan]

Speak for yourself! You don't speak for me.

Well, I think the situation here is that you happen to be truly unforgettably extra ordinary, unlike the many of us mortals. I wholeheartedly agree that I have no business speaking for you. I am truly sorry.

[ramseybuckeye]

I see this posted so often that it is taken as fact. But I wonder how correct it is?
Groups of buyers:

1. Those who buy the 1 or 2 lens kit and never buy another lens. When they get a new camera they buy a new kit, maybe even changing brands.
2. Those who buy the kit and maybe the DA 50mm f/1.8 or DA 35mm f/2.4. They will likely change bodies going forward but might never buy another lens.
3. Those who buy the 'standard' high end zooms like DA*16-50 and DA*60-250 and that's it. Will certainly change bodies going forward but maybe not need any new lenses.
4. Those who like and use a good collection of lenses such as DA* and Limited. Will buy a good number of expensive pieces of glass over time.
5. Those who have a good collection of vintage glass. Will certainly change up bodies but have no need for any 'new' glass.

I will say it is most likely the margins are higher on glass, but total dollars or total profit? I'm not so sure. We have no statistics to confirm or disprove anything but if we assume most buyers just buy a kit and maybe a couple of primes I don't see the dollars coming from the glass but rather in having customers buy new cameras every year or so.

I have to agree that the buyer #1 category is the big majority, is that because they buy them at the big box stores that don't normally have any other lenses, or don't those stores carry lenses because they don't sell? Retailers like to carry products that create profits, and don't sit around long. There must be decent profits for retailers to stock the DSLRs in the first place, but why not the lens? Many of these retailers carry two lens Canikon kits, but you'd rarely see another lens. But I also think selling the DSLRs really helps them sell accessories like bags and tripods, most likely a $1000 worth of DSLR can't come close to the profit that a $1000 worth of accessories does. How often have you been to a big box store and see somebody witha camera kit, backback, crappy tripod, and a bunch of other crap the don't need. It's no different that the TV salesman trying to sell you $100 HDMI cables (that are worth $10). That buyer #1 is the cash cow for the retail industry, the manufacturer's love them as well.

[monochrome]

Gee, you guys aren't getting it, man.

For ordinary consumers, unlike nerdy people like us who have nothing better to do other than to frequent camera brand forum sites, it has nothing to do with their needs. If a neighbor gets a FF and the price point is doable, the other guy simply cannot resist not buying FF. That was how DSLR got itself established in the market place, despite the fact that there were plenty of capable P&S. It is not about IQ or how pretty the pictures are going to be. Size also have nothing to do with it. It is about what the next guy has that you don't. Reading many posts here, I even think that it is more about looking cool and unique, rather than pursuing the ultimate picture quality (btw there is nothing wrong w dat).

Current line up of DSLRs by all brands are a complete overkill for most of us.

We buy these stupid things because we cannot stand the thought of ourselves not having it while that dumb ass next door has one while him having no clues as to how to use it.

We are suckers for it.

I hope you are kidding. I get all the judgmental talk I need from the government.

Nobody could resist a Spotmatic and some Takumars, for that matter. For the average consumer a Yashica Electro was more than enough. Nobody could resist a K or M body or any Canon or Oly or Minolta either when for every single one of those consumer buyers an Instamtatic would have done the trick just fine. How about an SX-70?

And don't even start me on cars. Zero to speed limit in 4 1/2 seconds instead of 6 1/2 only costs twice as much as an Accord. But hey, if ya got the $75,000, and ya gotta keep up with Joe down the lane, why not?