[Kunzite]

Sorry, but I see no indication that Pentax is selling the K-1 or the 645Z at a loss and recover the money on lenses. Actually there are good reasons why both cameras are priced like this (and in Japan, the K-1 isn't cheap at all).
But if you have something, please tell me.

[biz-engineer]

Actually, why do people post thread like this one? Is that beneficial unless they are posting from a competitor's standpoint)?

[MJKoski]

Sigma 50 and 85 Art lenses currently have edge over CaNikon counterparts and by large margin. 35mm as well except new Canon 35mm 1.4 L II which is industry leader, though quite lot more expensive. 24mm Art is so-so but 20mm excellent. AF performance is always a question compared to brand glass.

[biz-engineer]

Actually, why do people post thread like this one? Is that beneficial unless they are posting from a competitor's standpoint)?

[niceshot]

Very dramatic, Dariusz, but we're not breaking up with a lover!

Your answer is correct, but he is right they will be back to kiss our behinds

[biz-engineer]

Sigma 50 and 85 Art lenses currently have edge over CaNikon counterparts and by large margin. 35mm as well except new Canon 35mm 1.4 L II which is industry leader, though quite lot more expensive. 24mm Art is so-so but 20mm excellent. AF performance is always a question compared to brand glass.

If you are a smart guy, and you think that Pentax isn't as good as alternative offers, you should not put it forward on Pentax forum. If you are smart, you could stay silent or you could say positive things about what you own, sell it , and get the camera and lenses from the better brand. If you say bad things in a public place about what you own and if you don't sell it, basically, all you do is to shoot yourself in the foot.

[niceshot]

Sigma is a third party player who doesn't license their lenses. They have some glass that is excellent optically, but they are still forced to sell at lower prices compared to the brands who make the camera bodies. The Sigma 35 f1.4 is priced 899 on Amazon, while the Nikon 35mm f1.4 is priced at 1696 and the Canon 35mm f1.4 II is priced at 1696. No one is saying that Sigma makes bad glass, they are just saying that they end up having to sell their lenses for less than the original brand.

I think it is not unusual for camera brands to cut pricing on camera bodies to the lowest possible in order to build user base. If you make that up on lens sales, then it more than works out. It's the printer/printer cartridge, razor/razor blade model of sales and it seems to work pretty well.

Which makes it a bad idea to cut off their Pentax customers. Basically they are kind of committing suicide.

[biz-engineer]

And if Ricoh will rebadge the best of Sigma or Tamron premium glass, people will complain...

[niceshot]

And if Ricoh will rebadge the best of Sigma or Tamron premium glass, people will complain...

Yes people lve to complain don't they?

[clackers]

Sorry, but I see no indication that Pentax is selling the K-1 or the 645Z at a loss and recover the money on lenses. Actually there are good reasons why both cameras are priced like this (and in Japan, the K-1 isn't cheap at all).
But if you have something, please tell me.

Who said they are 'loss leaders"?

The K-1 is sold for less than the Canikon flagships, but the D FA lenses are sold at comparable prices.

It may have been Monochrome who revealed that developing the 645Z was a Hoya solution for the old inventory of MF lenses they inherited.

Nikon chiefly sell DX cameras but most of the lenses they design and promote are FX.

Lenses can offer a greater markup than the camera itself, being luxury items rather than commodity ones.

Any company that doesn't sell more lenses than bodies is doing something wrong.

[eddie1960]

In which industry it happens "all the time"? The examples used are the classic razor&blades, and printer&ink... but I don't remember ever seeing camera&lens.

Then you are not paying attention , it's been like that since I started taking photos in 73. Not every lens they release works that way but for certain he volume lenses make up for some camera loss. Razor blades are an extreme. Lenses contribute more profit per unit always have (same with all accessories) and they keep camera sales happening because once you make a mount commitment you are unlikely to change when you are buying a new body, and for many the body will be better than the last as their skill develops and that is where the bodies contribute more

[Kunzite]

True, the premise was about Pentax cameras being subsidized by lenses. I guess this might be done without losing money on those products.

Even so - it's of course natural for the K-1 to be several times less expensive than a monster camera offering extreme performance. The K-1 is a product designed for a much lower price point, that's all - no subsidizing involved.
And while that was probably a factor in making the 645D viable - the 645Z is a Ricoh Imaging product - they didn't make the camera and new lenses just to sell existing inventory.
Nikon DX, again, it's about different tier products and not subsidizing.

[nitehntr]

I think some people use the word "cheap" to mean poor quality and there certainly have been times in the past where Sigma offered lenses that were not great in terms of optical quality and build. However, in this thread, I think the term is being used simply that Sigma lenses are priced lower than the brand name alternatives. If you run down a list of lenses 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, etc you find that Sigma's lenses are priced lower than Canon and Nikon's lenses.

Would they sell many if they were priced the same? I don't know. Some people love their Sigma lenses. As a Pentax shooter, I like the compact size that lenses like the FA 31 and FA 77 offer and have consistently chosen those over Sigma's 35 and 85 offerings. Maybe that's why their k mount sales aren't better than they are.

i chose the 150-450 for instance over the sigma 150-500 even with the price difference just for the fact that it was designed by the same people who designed the K1 and the K3 which is what it is used on. maybe i am naive but that has to translate to better image quality even though i am just an amateur. i wish i could say money was not an issue but i had to save up for it and am now saving for the D-FA 70-200. same reason designed by the same people who designed my camera bodies. i have one each sigma and taproom lenses and am happy with them especially the tamron 70-200 f2.8 but still want the newer pentax designed lens. I'm not getting any younger so i figure i might as well since my boys are all raised and on their own.

[eddie1960]

Sorry, but I see no indication that Pentax is selling the K-1 or the 645Z at a loss and recover the money on lenses. Actually there are good reasons why both cameras are priced like this (and in Japan, the K-1 isn't cheap at all).
But if you have something, please tell me.

Those aren't the bodies that lose, all pro cameras are priced to cover their costs, but then they are but a small portion of sales. E showpieces and higher end at any company are there to drive volume in the lower priced products, they actually subsidize the feature development. Rumoured KP which is likely an entry level item is where the camera drives volume but doesn't make a ton, accessories like a flash and a tele zoom and perhaps a 35 2.4 or 50 1.8 are where the profit start to flow. Then a percentage of the new users that drives to the brand builds the more profitable enthusiast product sales . You get a distorted view of the industry when your whole experience is from interaction on forums like this because this is generally the land of converted enthusiasts , we buy the higher profit items but the volume is not from us , it's from the masses who buy entry level items

[Zygonyx]

We can assume that sigma 4,5mm circular fisheye is not getting enough sales in K-mount

I don't mind, i already got mine