Originally posted by rawr And note that while everyone has been slashing body prices, lens prices never fall as much, so brand value and the value of user investments is retained. The price of a K-3 may have halved over the last 16 months, but the price of a DA*300 or FA31 certainly hasn't.
Very true.
The SLR camera business before 2000 has traditionally been built on profits on glasses, not camera bodies. The camera acts as a mere gateway, a hook for enthusiasts for them to buy glasses where serious money will be made. Enthusiasts, not "soccer moms" or pros.
The genius of Canon in the year 2000 turned the original business rationale, into its head. They promoted their products through loss-leading professional endorsements, and Canon became an aspirational brand. Nikon, a step slower, nevertheless, followed suit. Pentax did not. The move catapulted Canon into the top as they start rolling the Rebel series to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to "shoot like a pro". By then, they have started making tons of money at camera bodies, where for most people, the kit lens would be good enough for the rest of the camera life, or until the next model arrived.
This started the DSLR boom that would almost last for a decade. Pursuing the idea relentlessly, Canon produced relatively affordable plastic lenses with lesser quality for these Rebel series, and they kept their upper-tiered products (the Ls) at premium quality and premium prices, ensuring that the brand will maintain the "aspirational" image. Of course, obviously, not everybody will buy those white lenses, but Canon will always be happy to sell you their consumer DSLRs and consumer lenses.
However, the advent of camera phones have proved to be a major challenge now. But I digress.
Pentax did make money at its glasses, and it seems that it has been trying to continue that business model of making money traditionally, thus, the value of our glasses should hold (unless a new mount will be introduced).