05-25-2012, 06:34 PM
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1337866601' post='18486']
Sure, I suggest to add the Nikon 17-55 DX to those you mentioned. Anyhow, what concerns me more right now is the pricing of the MFT bodies. The MILC producers are milking their customers.
[/quote]
I don't think you fully understand how the price of such an item is built up. I recently had some stuff produced myself, and I was amazed how quickly costs add up over which one has no influence, materials prior to even creatign the goods, the parts, the assembly, QC, packaging, shipment, R&D costs, wages, investemtns in factories and materials, banking costs, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, retailers need to make a profit too, and I can assure you that the current margins they have makes it rather hard to survive unless one sells a few million a year worth of equipment (per retailer that is).
Other than that, compare this to prices 30 years ago. Cost of living has gone up drastically in those years, as we all know. 32 years ago I got myself a 20 mm F/4 lens, cost well over 900 (945 if I am not mistaken) dutch guilders, about 450 euros. If I use an inflation rate of 3%, on a yearly basis, that same lens would cost me now 1160 euros. And this is an all manual lens, at the time pretty good, but I reckon the current Canon 20 F/2.8 would beat it.
In short, this is all relative, and the same can be applied to bodies. Actually, with bodies it is worse, because in 3 years time it is totally outdated, whereas in the analog days it was perfectly normal to use a body for 15-20 years or even more.
I also reckon that if you want less pricey, you won't get the same quality, neither optically, nor build wise.
Kind regards, Wim
Sure, I suggest to add the Nikon 17-55 DX to those you mentioned. Anyhow, what concerns me more right now is the pricing of the MFT bodies. The MILC producers are milking their customers.
[/quote]
I don't think you fully understand how the price of such an item is built up. I recently had some stuff produced myself, and I was amazed how quickly costs add up over which one has no influence, materials prior to even creatign the goods, the parts, the assembly, QC, packaging, shipment, R&D costs, wages, investemtns in factories and materials, banking costs, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, retailers need to make a profit too, and I can assure you that the current margins they have makes it rather hard to survive unless one sells a few million a year worth of equipment (per retailer that is).
Other than that, compare this to prices 30 years ago. Cost of living has gone up drastically in those years, as we all know. 32 years ago I got myself a 20 mm F/4 lens, cost well over 900 (945 if I am not mistaken) dutch guilders, about 450 euros. If I use an inflation rate of 3%, on a yearly basis, that same lens would cost me now 1160 euros. And this is an all manual lens, at the time pretty good, but I reckon the current Canon 20 F/2.8 would beat it.
In short, this is all relative, and the same can be applied to bodies. Actually, with bodies it is worse, because in 3 years time it is totally outdated, whereas in the analog days it was perfectly normal to use a body for 15-20 years or even more.
I also reckon that if you want less pricey, you won't get the same quality, neither optically, nor build wise.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....