Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
tgutgu Veteran Member • Posts: 4,033
Re: Whether you like it or not....

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Given than image circle is smaller and glass used is smaller, there really is no reason why they are as expensive as they are. a 25mm F1/8 for m43 should be half the diameter and half the length  as 50 F1.8 for FF. Material cost should be roughly 1/8th. Yeah I know the marketing cost and channel cost is the same etc, but surely, one would think  it should at the least be half the price, not twice the price?

You are paying for R&D costs and smaller economies of scale. Canon and Nikon have been churning bodies and lenses out for a much longer time now and have a huge customer base backed by powerful marketing strategies, that's the reality of it all.

RD cost aye? Well, Nikon released an all new 50 F1.8 two years ago, brand new design and even has an aspherical element, priceed at just 219 USD. their all new 85 F1.8, currently ranked number 1 in all lenses tested in DXO, cost only 499 USD. So this RD cost argument doesnt really fly for me.

The R&D cost is for the emerging m4/3's mirrorless technologies, the cameras are improving all the time. Lens design hasn't changed a whole lot in years, just better coatings and manufacturing.

So the golden question is why cant they sell lenses are more palatable prices?

m4/3 glass is more palatable than most FF glass.

As for economy of scale, it is understandable that m43 lenses are not 1/8th price of FF lenses, but not understandable when m43 lenses are more expensive than FF lenses.

Ultimately market forces drive the price, if they're too expensive then they won't sell. Clearly Panasonic and Olympus don't think they are yet so they must be selling.

At any price there will be buyers, but the higher the price the less the buyers, basic economics, demand curve, I am sure you know it.

At their current price, M43 lenses are not selling as many as they should, and thus attachment is not as strong as canikon. What proportion M43 owners own more than 3 prime lenses?

What evidence do you have? The excellent 1.8/45mm and 1.7/20mm, 2.5/14mm are cheap. The 1.8/17mm, 2.8/45mm, 2.8/45mm, 2.0/12mm, and 1.4/25mm are mid range, but with very good quality. The only lens, which can be considered expensive, but has unmatched build quality, is the 1.8/75mm, one of the best rated lenses. m4/3 caused a renaissance of prime lenses and is the driving force that DSLR manufacturers turned their face again towards prime lenses. So what proportion of DSLR owners do more than three primes?

In my DSLR times I did not buy a lot of lenses not because of the prices, but simply because they where too large and heavy. Now, especially the primes are so small that I own more lenses than I ever had during my SLR and DSLR eras. It is vice versa, probably never owned so many people so many primes than now with m4/3 and mirrorless in general.

Also at its current price, there are plenty of people asking the same question as OP but havent taken the first step, they are not buying into m43 system because lens cost too much.

Nonsense. Look at the small but fairly good tele zooms in the range of 40-150mm, you have enough of cheap alternatives. The small Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm equiv.) costs 510€ whereas a EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm equiv.) is about 700€, a comparable Sigma sells for around 430€, and a Tokina for around 500€. So, for these minor differences, you think someone does not buy into m4/3? You are making something up here.

-- hide signature --


 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +31 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow