Mark Roberts wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > > >>The costs aren't due to limited supply of >>lenses compared to demand, but due to the inherently higher costs of >>doing short production runs and higher per-unit profit requirements to >>make the product viable. > > > Mike J wrote very cogently about this just a couple of weeks ago: > http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/09/smart-and-dumb-prime-lenses-103_16.html > > "Imagine that it costs $250,000 to develop a lens — design it, > engineer the parts, construct and test a prototype, etc. Cost of > manufacture, above and beyond the development cost, is then $100 per > unit. If you know you're going to sell 250,000 units, then the cost of > each lens is $101. But if you know you're only going to sell 5,000 > units, the cost of the same lens is $150. Now imagine that you don't > know how many units you're going to sell — you might sell 5,000, or > you might sell 1,000 or even fewer. Your break even cost could be as > high as $350 per unit." > >
Which is correct, but ignores the rest of the issue (Per-unit profit to cover other business expenses) which make the difference even larger. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
