Originally posted by serothis Price is not necessarily indicative of the cost of manufacturing.
True.
Originally posted by serothis The name stamped on the product is important.
True.
Originally posted by serothis Fuji is a bigger name than Pentax and can more easily sell at a higher price.
Not so sure that A+B here equals C. Fujifilm has invested more in R&D to come out with their recent line of new products. There is also a greater demand for their current system offering vs. Pentax accepting legacy lenses.
Originally posted by serothis As an example, are Nikon or Canon lenses more expensive than Pentax because they're more expensive to manufacture? I doubt it.
Made in Japan, China, or Vietnam can be one of many cause and effect reasons. And is the assumption that Nikon or Canon lenses are more expensive than Pentax?
All three 18-55mm kit zooms are just under $200.
How does one really compare, for example, just 50mm primes?
Pentax DA 50mm f/1.7 $117
vs.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM $125
vs.
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G $217
I think it really comes down to supply & demand. Canon has the volume but marketing expenses. Nikon has less of both, but still significantly higher than Pentax. Is the Pentax the cheapest because of the name, or because of the build quality and materials (i.e. AF on the plastic fantastics), location of manufacture, and low marketing expenses?
Certainly some names (Zeiss, Schneider, Yongnuo) command prices at the extremes in part of because of the brand, but the cost of manufacture and supply/demand are bigger factors. And then you have anomalies like Sigma that is only recently considered a quality brand, but their prices has more to do with quality and cost of manufacture and not brand name.