For the cost of a can of tomatoes

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
dwkyre Regular Member • Posts: 187
Re: For the cost of a can of tomatoes
2

While I think your assumptions about production cost are significantly skewed (a lot of manpower and fancy materials go into modern mass-produced lenses), the biggest thing you miss is that pricing has very little to do with production cost.

First, the product will be sold for whatever cost the market will bear. If we will buy the lens for that price, they will sell it. This is the law supply and demand. Will they sell more if it were cheaper? Maybe, but maybe not enough to offset the lower margin. I am sure someone at each of these companies has a chart projecting the ideal point in these curves.

On top of that, this has been going on for a long time. Could we get cheaper lenses out of Olympus? Sure! They made the body cap lenses after all. But they know what we are willing to spend, so instead of making things cheaper, they try to make things better to keep those prices up. Even if the lenses were super cheap, the market for them won’t be huge. Why build for the lowest pricing when you won’t see a commensurate increase in sales?

In short, lenses cost real money to make, and they cost this money because they have been designed to, and they were designed to because that is the best way to get people to buy them.

 dwkyre's gear list:dwkyre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow