Originally posted by biz-engineer I believe for non pro , there is a kind of psychological price barrier of about $1000. If you consider that you'll buy a ff camera body and three lenses in the next 4 years, you can think of having spent $4900 is already a lot for taking photos. But at the moment, there is a kind of inflation trend taking place on new lenses... now, new Canon lenses cost nearly $2000 each (to take digital pictures in 24x36... when I was a kid, 24x36 film was standard and so cheap in comparison...). The famous Pentax full frame "upgrade path" is actually harder to swallow versus if you were a customer of the competition.
My father brought his Pentax FF in time with a 50mm f/1.7 in 1969. He paid 1500 francs for that. By today this means 1800-2000$ and maybe 400-500$ for the lens alone.
Now a K30 + DA50 f/1.8 get better results and cost 450$...
You go after the best biz-engineer. That's a luxury. Not everybody has the same objective to pay much more for marginally better products.
90% DSLR sales are still APSC and DSLR + MILC is a small part of the camera market. P&S sell much more, even if the market shrink. And there more than billion smartphones, all with a camera sold each year.
Everybody choose what is enough for his need/requirement/purpose. While there nothing wrong going for the best, that an expensive route and it doesn't mean there will always be a large difference.
We all know the photographer talent, the subject and the light make or break the photo, not the gear. When you buy what Pentax or Canon or Sony have more expensive, you pay to actually get a better gear, but a good share of the money spent is being able to say "I have the best". You pay them to feel better, to match the image you have of yourself or the image you want to project to others.