[nanok]

samsungian: thank you for the reminder: as i said, yes, we are all crazzy, yes, the fact that the similar canon lens went up to Xbucks while the pentax is up to 2Xbucks is a mere collective illusion: everybody raised prices, at roughly the same rate, it's just us, junkies, high on cola and nicotine, who seem to think it's impossible to go up from roughly the same price to two different prices which work out to 1/2, at the same rate during the same period.

wtf have you been smoking?
(yes, i am pissed, and yes i am tired of saying the same thing over and over again. nothing personal, but please take the time to read before sharing your wisdom)

[thibs]

Which proves that when a company does increase prices every now and then, everybody finds it annoying, will moan a bit and then shut up.

When one (stupidly for them) doesn't not, keeping low prices and comes to a situation where they have to bring them up because they are losing money on each of them, instead of thanking them for previous period, you almost insult them because them wanna survive.

Yep, devil's advocate here but if I undesrtood well the words of Wheatfield, I put it in another way. I don't necesarily think what I wrote in this post, but this has to be taken into consideration as well IMO.

[nanok]

okay, i see that somehow i don't seem to get the message through. let's try another way. hypothetical scenario (more real than you think, btw):

i have been wanting the 16-50 and the 50-135 for a long time, for reasons beyond my control i was not ready to spend the cash. i followed the prices, i knew they were expensive, they were a bit more expensive than other brands even, that didn't bother me, my mind was set. now i have the cash, but my calculations are somhow not what they used to be. here is what they look like now:

i have a k20d, and some lenses. i want the above mentioned to. i can either get them at the current price, or:

i can get the toking 16-50+50-135, and a canon 50d, all brand new. and i am left with roughly 500bucks in my pocket. i don't even have to sell the k20d! or any of the lenses.

yeah, i know the 50d is not the same as the k20d, i know the tokinas are nto weather sealed, but do you see how wrong that sounds?

if i go further and try to find a used 40d instead, i will be left with almost 1k in my pocket, i still haven't sold the k20d.

should i try to make the same calculations for new k7+16-50+50-135 vs say canon 7d+16-50+50-135? better not...

it's nto about being the dirt cheap brand or not (it's never been in europe, btw, not since digital at least, and people who bought the istd new can surely testify to that), it is simply about how ****ing wrong it sounds, however you look at it.

please give me one good realistic reason in the above imaginary scenario (but based on actual hard figures, make no mistake) to buy the lenses isntead of the lenses + canon, not "because you love pentax" and such, actual rational points. please.

[Wheatfield]

okay, i see that somehow i don't seem to get the message through. let's try another way. hypothetical scenario (more real than you think, btw):

i have been wanting the 16-50 and the 50-135 for a long time, for reasons beyond my control i was not ready to spend the cash. i followed the prices, i knew they were expensive, they were a bit more expensive than other brands even, that didn't bother me, my mind was set. now i have the cash, but my calculations are somhow not what they used to be. here is what they look like now:

i have a k20d, and some lenses. i want the above mentioned to. i can either get them at the current price, or:

i can get the toking 16-50+50-135, and a canon 50d, all brand new. and i am left with roughly 500bucks in my pocket. i don't even have to sell the k20d! or any of the lenses.

yeah, i know the 50d is not the same as the k20d, i know the tokinas are nto weather sealed, but do you see how wrong that sounds?

if i go further and try to find a used 40d instead, i will be left with almost 1k in my pocket, i still haven't sold the k20d.

should i try to make the same calculations for new k7+16-50+50-135 vs say canon 7d+16-50+50-135? better not...

it's nto about being the dirt cheap brand or not (it's never been in europe, btw, not since digital at least, and people who bought the istd new can surely testify to that), it is simply about how ****ing wrong it sounds, however you look at it.

please give me one good realistic reason in the above imaginary scenario (but based on actual hard figures, make no mistake) to buy the lenses isntead of the lenses + canon, not "because you love pentax" and such, actual rational points. please.

Move.
It's that simple.
I just priced locally a Canon 50D at 1199.00
Their 17-55 IS is 1279.00
and their 70-200 2.8 USM is 2049
for a total of 4527.00
Add 600 bucks if you want a 7D instead of a D50.
Switching to Tokina glass will put you in the same price ballpark as Pentax if you buy the 7D and Tokina.

Move over to Pentax and the K7 is 1399.00
the 16-50/2.8 is 1099.00
The 50-135/2.8 is 1199.00
for a total of 3697.00.
Granted you are getting 50 more millimeters from the Canon telezoom for your 830 extra dollars.

Tokina lenses here are quite inexpensive by comparison, the Tokina 12-24 is a little more than half the cost of the Pentax 12-24, the 16-50 Tokina is 2/3 the Pentax 16-50. This doesn't surprise me, Tokina glass has always been comparatively cheap when compared to first manufacture lenses.

[reeftool]

Every manufacturer of any product is doing it with the intention of making a profit. No profit, they go under. Pentax has to compete with larger companys with much larger volume. They have to match or at least come close to the big guys in features and quality and keep pace with the ever changing marketplace with new models and have to match or even beat them on price. Pentax is doing what it has to do to survive as a company. Nikon and Canon are competing with each other for dominance in the camera market with the giant electronics company Sony willing to spend billions just to be a player. Somehow Pentax has to compete with this and turn a profit. I'm glad it's not my job.

[Wheatfield]

Somehow Pentax has to compete with this and turn a profit. I'm glad it's not my job.

Especially not with this userbase

[ryan s]

OK, so you don't seem to get the analogy, instead you argue about insignificant details of it. Let me try another one, maybe this will work.

You buy a Canon printer for $300 thinking that cartridges will cost $15, in line with competition. Instead after 3 months Canon increases cartridge prices to $30 making them more expensive than competition. Your total cost of ownership just went up without any benefits to you. How do you feel about Canon's behavior? How likely are you to buy a Canon printer again?

Ok, let's pretend I still don't get the analogy (hint: I'm humoring you now like I was before.)

Since you've decided to use the printer scenario, I have to ask...are you living under a rock? Printer ink is the most expensive liquid commodity out there (hyperbole, perhaps, but look at a 30mL $35 cartridge). Everyone is paying more for ink by the day, yet we still buy buy buy.

Oil was once "Black Gold"...now let's add in magenta, cyan, and yellow

Ever owned an Epson printer? Those can't be refilled by Walgreens for $10 or $15 per.

When was the last time you went to hit print and said "ooooo no, I'd better not. This ink might go up in price next week."

Both your analogies were bad. In case Underarockville doesn't get the news, Sony sells cheaper camera bodies and charges more for lenses. Cell phone companies. Cable companies.

Anything that lures you in with something cheap which becomes more expensive can be considered "subsidizing." Does Pentax do it? Ehhh, kinda sorta. The bodies are cheaper than the competition but the lenses aren't too bad now that Pentax is charging what the lenses are worth. I am one of those people who will save and buy what I really want.

They definitely don't "lure" you in with "free printers"..."free phones"..."free DVR for the first 12 months"...Pentax's prices are marked clear as day so you can price your system as you choose. William (Wheatfield) proved this later in the thread.

I completely understand it sucks to pay more for something that was once cheaper. Bolded so that everyone understands I am not living in Underarockville.

Would it also be that the bigger the logistics cost, the higher the end price to the consumer is? Does the size of the market matter?

Consider that the US is the biggest single market out there, with the option to import camera's and equipment through 1 central hub, no need for specialized adapted advertisements, documentation or warranties?

The EU comes next in line and although it is an open market for duty purposes, the admin involved in getting the VAT correct across 27 different national legislations and VAT registrations (or representations) would be high. Add to that the need to reflect 27 different jurisdictions on sales and warranty transactions and the need to document in over 22 languages and I would suggest that would account for at least a sizable part of the difference.

Finally, on to the UK. It is the UK's express policy to distance itself legislation-wise as much as possible from mainland Europe. A smaller market than either the US or the continental EU, the UK suffers from many issues that would require an importer to consider the UK as a totally separate market. Logistically speaking, supplying goods to the UK is more expensive if done from one main hub due to the Northsea that separates the UK from mainland Europe. If deliveries are directly to the UK and excluded from the main hub, decreased volumes are likely to induce higher logistics costs.

Not saying it accounts for just about anything (f.i. the higher level of government care in Europe also draws higher taxes) but it does go a long way to explaining the differences.

Talking about that...don't you guys in the EU also make more money compared to (most) Americans? I know you have more taxes on pretty much everything and the cost of living is higher.

Somewhat like in America, the cost of living is higher in some places so people make more. A decent apartment here in my city is about $700/month. When I lived in a city with a quarter of the population (50,000), I was paying $450 for a nice place.

Average "starting" salaries here are about $24,000 a year. I know a Californian who "started" at $35k but pays more for everything.

I guess it's relative

Move.
It's that simple.
I just priced locally a Canon 50D at 1199.00
Their 17-55 IS is 1279.00
and their 70-200 2.8 USM is 2049
for a total of 4527.00
Add 600 bucks if you want a 7D instead of a D50.
Switching to Tokina glass will put you in the same price ballpark as Pentax if you buy the 7D and Tokina.

Move over to Pentax and the K7 is 1399.00
the 16-50/2.8 is 1099.00
The 50-135/2.8 is 1199.00
for a total of 3697.00.
Granted you are getting 50 more millimeters from the Canon telezoom for your 830 extra dollars.

Tokina lenses here are quite inexpensive by comparison, the Tokina 12-24 is a little more than half the cost of the Pentax 12-24, the 16-50 Tokina is 2/3 the Pentax 16-50. This doesn't surprise me, Tokina glass has always been comparatively cheap when compared to first manufacture lenses.

Watch out William, here people come trying to refute actual numbers

Every manufacturer of any product is doing it with the intention of making a profit. No profit, they go under. Pentax has to compete with larger companys with much larger volume. They have to match or at least come close to the big guys in features and quality and keep pace with the ever changing marketplace with new models and have to match or even beat them on price. Pentax is doing what it has to do to survive as a company. Nikon and Canon are competing with each other for dominance in the camera market with the giant electronics company Sony willing to spend billions just to be a player. Somehow Pentax has to compete with this and turn a profit. I'm glad it's not my job.

Some local shops are competing with Walmart, while others have fallen. Let Canon and Nikon fight it out, while Pentax keeps doing its thing. They provide a different "service," if you will, like small places do vs giant chain stores.

Especially not with this userbase

And still some people just can't leave Pentax...hmmm...so it's gotta be something other than prices

[Wheatfield]

And still some people just can't leave Pentax...hmmm...so it's gotta be something other than prices

I'm a lens fanboy

[ryan s]

I'm a lens fanboy

I think we may have reached the full circle of News and Rumors threads with that post...all the way back to the beginning

[juu]

Since you've decided to use the printer scenario, I have to ask...are you living under a rock? Printer ink is the most expensive liquid commodity out there (hyperbole, perhaps, but look at a 30mL $35 cartridge). Everyone is paying more for ink by the day, yet we still buy buy buy.

You're the one who cannot read and you accuse me of living under a rock?

Please see point d. where I acknowledge the price of printer ink and predict you making this (irrelevant) argument.

When was the last time you went to hit print and said "ooooo no, I'd better not. This ink mightgo up in price next week."

I haven't, because printer companies don't raise the price of their cartridges by 100% nearly overnight. As opposed to Hoya which has, for some of the products.

Both your analogies were bad. In case Underarockville doesn't get the news, Sony sells cheaper camera bodies and charges more for lenses. Cell phone companies. Cable companies.

Again, just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't mean it's "bad" or that you have to revert to personal insults.

The point isn't how expensive ink is or whether other companies do the freebie marketing model to a bigger degree than Pentax. The point is that the price of "repeat business" items has been raised to an extreme degree on an inconsistent basis.

Pentax's prices are marked clear as day so you can price your system as you choose.

Evidently, only if you buy it all at once and then never buy another product from Pentax again.

Bolded so that everyone understands I am not living in Underarockville.

Disputable, since you still don't seem to understand what the discussion is about.

[Wheatfield]

I haven't, because printer companies don't raise the price of their cartridges by 100% nearly overnight. As opposed to Hoya which has, for some of the products.

Pentax had undervalued their lenses for at least a decade, probably more like two decades. This is primarily why they got into a financial mess and had to be sold to Hoya or face going out of business.
Why do you think they looked like such a good value when you bought your stuff, if in fact they were?
The new owners don't share the old mindset of running the company at a loss until there is no more money.
When you did your price based comparison shopping before you chose a camera system, did you stop to wonder how a small player like Pentax could make such good stuff so cheaply when the big players like Canon and Nikon couldn't?
Did you stop to think that the Pentax business model of the day might have had a couple of flaws?
Did you ask yourself how can they afford to do this when the big players can't?
Or did you presume that the big guys were colluding to price gouge their customers the same way you are presuming Pentax is price gouging you now?

[ryan s]

You're the one who cannot read and you accuse me of living under a rock?

Please see point d. where I acknowledge the price of printer ink and predict you making this (irrelevant) argument.

I haven't, because printer companies don't raise the price of their cartridges by 100% nearly overnight. As opposed to Hoya which has, for some of the products.

Again, just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't mean it's "bad" or that you have to revert to personal insults.

The point isn't how expensive ink is or whether other companies do the freebie marketing model to a bigger degree than Pentax. The point is that the price of "repeat business" items has been raised to an extreme degree on an inconsistent basis.

Evidently, only if you buy it all at once and then never buy another product from Pentax again.

Disputable, since you still don't seem to understand what the discussion is about.

I can read, believe it or not, I just don't bother reading meandering, ranting, nitpicking posts.

I made it through the first line of this post

Repeat business is repeat business. Don't like the cost but love the service rendered? There are other pastures but the grass might not be greener.

[ryan s]

Pentax had undervalued their lenses for at least a decade, probably more like two decades. This is primarily why they got into a financial mess and had to be sold to Hoya or face going out of business.
Why do you think they looked like such a good value when you bought your stuff, if in fact they were?
The new owners don't share the old mindset of running the company at a loss until there is no more money.
When you did your price based comparison shopping before you chose a camera system, did you stop to wonder how a small player like Pentax could make such good stuff so cheaply when the big players like Canon and Nikon couldn't?
Did you stop to think that the Pentax business model of the day might have had a couple of flaws?
Did you ask yourself how can they afford to do this when the big players can't?
Or did you presume that the big guys were colluding to price gouge their customers the same way you are presuming Pentax is price gouging you now?

It's all a conspiracy! I hope juu has a tin foil hat handy.

[jogiba]

Is this supposed to be information to be trusted or yet another rumor

I guess you are the last one to know about the new full frame smc PENTAX D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro .
smc PENTAX D FA MACRO 100mm F2.8 WR - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site

[juu]

It's all a conspiracy! I hope juu has a tin foil hat handy.

In other words, you've given up on the actual argument (that you never quite understood), but keep it up with continued personal attacks. Brilliant.