MIkhail
-
Surprisingly, a lot.
I just always try to "keep it real" as they say
Did not mean to offend anyone.
Matus
Well-known
Well - I would not say that $900 is cheap either, but if you ever had a Zeiss lens in hand you would notice that there is awfully little plastic on them and the mechanical quality is only next to Leica.
Indeed - it is yet to be seen how the X lenses will be made, but I definitely expect something that does not fit that 'piece of plastic' description.
High Precision
• Precise, durable mechanics with a low weight
• Robust metal design for many years of use
• Grippy focus ring for precise manual focussing
• Innovative product design for excellent usability and the
highest aesthetic demands
Sounds plastic to me!
• Precise, durable mechanics with a low weight
• Robust metal design for many years of use
• Grippy focus ring for precise manual focussing
• Innovative product design for excellent usability and the
highest aesthetic demands
Sounds plastic to me!
back alley
IMAGES
Surprisingly, a lot.
I just always try to "keep it real" as they say
Did not mean to offend anyone.
the lens...is made from glass...
the housing is made from plastic...
in this day and age to complain about things being made from plastic is beyond my thinking...the whole damn world is made from plastic...
MIkhail
-
You missing my point a bit: so what if they are made of pure steel? I have Zeiss lenses, btw.
To me the insane prices that they charge for Leica lenses rivals only to the insane willingness of people to pay those prices.
(I am mechanical engineer by profession and know precise mechanisms (was a gage designer at one point), so I am not all that shocked by tight tolerances of 3 tubes and 10 pieces of glass)
My point is: people are so well conditioned to expect to pay so much, and $900 seems like cheap. That is kind of sad, considering how little it matters for the final result (which, I would hope, is a picture?)
The wonder of the free market. If no one would pay those prices, they would cost less, or not be made at all, if they weren't profitable. So, I guess the market has determined their value...as it always does, and should.
Although we aren't talking of Leica lenses here, rather of metal Zeiss lenses.
Although we aren't talking of Leica lenses here, rather of metal Zeiss lenses.
GaryLH
Veteran
It is all about expect profit margin vs volume (expect number of sales) vs manufacturing tolerences (which results in expect defect rate).. Setting the final price
Too me Fuji glass is already good enough for me.. But there are those willing to pay the price to get the last 1-3%.. That is who Leica and Zeiss are marketing to, IMHO.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
I forgot to mention.. Other brands maybe looking at a 2-3x profit margin, Zeiss and Leica are probably shooting for a 5x or greater profit margin.. Leica maybe more like 10x given last years comment from the CEO of Leica.
Gary
Matus
Well-known
Garry - what do you mean by 2-3x profit margin?
Exdsc
Well-known
Fuji lenses, Leica lenses, Zeiss lenses, irrespective of what lens you use with digital, the files have to be sharpened in post processing because the very act of digital post processing affects the edge contrast and detail.
$900 on a lens and then badly applied unsharp mask in photoshop, priceless combination.
$900 on a lens and then badly applied unsharp mask in photoshop, priceless combination.
GaryLH
Veteran
Hypothetical example
The cost of r&d, materials, and basic manufacturing cost, let's say is $30,000 dollars. So a 2x profit margin is 60,000... Thus looking at 90,000. But then u plug in expected number of sales is 100 (just a number for an easy calc) over let's say a two year period, that would mean msrp of 900..
Anyway this is what I think I remember from a conversation I had w/ a product line manager about 10 years back.
Btw my industry (not photography), the profit margin is 3x. W/ expect discount volume games w/ our middle man putting it more like 1.5-2x.
Gary
The cost of r&d, materials, and basic manufacturing cost, let's say is $30,000 dollars. So a 2x profit margin is 60,000... Thus looking at 90,000. But then u plug in expected number of sales is 100 (just a number for an easy calc) over let's say a two year period, that would mean msrp of 900..
Anyway this is what I think I remember from a conversation I had w/ a product line manager about 10 years back.
Btw my industry (not photography), the profit margin is 3x. W/ expect discount volume games w/ our middle man putting it more like 1.5-2x.
Gary
Kwesi
Well-known
It is beginning to feel somewhat unlikely.
Engineering NRE is separate from production materials/cost of goods/bill of materials and manufacturing/production costs. NRE = non recurring expense; I.e., engineering time, tooling, testing, CE approval, CAD, prototypes, etc.
So lets say the 32mm might cost say $1M in NRE to build the first production unit, and the per unit cost of say $300 each (materials and manufacturing time/overhead.)
Zeiss Germany might sell the lens to Zeiss USA for $600. Zeiss USA adds a marketing budget and profit margin, selling the lens for say $750 to B&H who then sells it for $900.
In this case Zeiss Germany has a 50% margin and Zeiss USA has a 25% margin, and B&H 16%.
There are other factors too, like cash discounts, market development funds, co-op advertising incentive for B&H, etc.
[These margins don't account for NRE, either. That is amortized separately, much depends on German tax law.]
Matus
Well-known
I see - I have not seen profit margin to be expressed that way. So you expect that profit margins on photographic lenses are somewhere between 50% (2x) and 90% (10x). Now THAT is way away from reality. And let me tell you why.
First of all - at the 'low margin' end - like mass produced lenses from Nikon or Canon - these companies go head-to-head and their customers compare the prices if any of them could cut their (hypothetical) 50% margin to 'only' 25% (which would still be a great number) - it would allow them to sell the lens cheaper by 25% and win MANY new customers. But that is not happening - because of the large competition - the prices (and that means merging as well as costs) have been pushed to levels not far from minimal possible. Here I would make a comparison to car market - average company like VW has margin on their cars somewhere at around 10-15%. Ferrari around 30%. Give or take.
Have a look at the loss the companies like Olympus or Fujifilm - they made LOSS over past year simply because the mirrorless camera do not really sell THAT (maybe 20-30% less than hoped) well and they do not manage to cover their development costs. If they were to have 50% margins - they would all be doing much better.
Second - the expensive lenses like Zeiss or Leica. These lenses really push to get the last possible bit of optical performance and that requires CRAZY precisions, complicated designs and that means expensive production, because in most cases to increase a precision by factor 2 it costs much more than a factor 2. Indeed - the margins are larger than with large volume production, but still under 50%.
Of course - if a given lens is expected to be sold at low numbers (for example Zeiss Cine lenses or Leica Noctilux or similar) - the costs per lens are higher and that drives the price of the final product.
Zeiss will introduce a 55/1.4 SLR lens in Autumn which will cost around €3000 (preliminary) - this lens is incredibly sharp even wide open with no color aberrations (I have seen some Zeiss tests) - pretty much a 'show-off lens' for Zeiss and maybe a user for those that really want/need all those 36Mpix from D800e to be sharp wide open. Do you really think that out of those €3000 there is something like 1500 - 2500 profit margin? It is simply not the case ...
EDIT: An yes - as was already said above - the food chain is long - the maker of the lens sees only part of total price.
GaryLH
Veteran
I c, I stand corrected.
The vp's of some companies I worked for in the past have told us that they need to target 2-3x profit margins on what we were developing in r&d side. I had also heard similar numbers from product line managers at different times.
Digitalintrigue, your right. I realize my nre mistake about 10 minutes ago in the car..
Gary
The vp's of some companies I worked for in the past have told us that they need to target 2-3x profit margins on what we were developing in r&d side. I had also heard similar numbers from product line managers at different times.
Digitalintrigue, your right. I realize my nre mistake about 10 minutes ago in the car..
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
I forgot to add.. In my industry we have the forecast sales volumes over the normal life expectancy of the product.. This is factored into the final msrp. I would expect high volume companies like Nikon and Canon to have much larger projected sales numbers then Zeiss for example.. So they essentially make up for it on sales volume.. U inferred this by mentioning the mirrorless sales slump and its affect on Olympus and Fuji.
But yeh, I did not realize camera makers had that tight of a margin.
Gary
But yeh, I did not realize camera makers had that tight of a margin.
Gary
I'm not sure if those margins are real-world, or if the NRE is even close. I also don't know exactly how the different divisions operate between each other (whether it is an actual sale from one entity to another for example.)
But there are plenty of factors...if one looks strictly at Zeiss DE and USA as a single entity, more than likely the raw cost is somewhere in that range (i.e., perhaps $250-$300 for a $1000 retail product.) And the NRE is recouped over time...they might be able to manufacture 50,000 units for example before having to make new tooling.
But there are plenty of factors...if one looks strictly at Zeiss DE and USA as a single entity, more than likely the raw cost is somewhere in that range (i.e., perhaps $250-$300 for a $1000 retail product.) And the NRE is recouped over time...they might be able to manufacture 50,000 units for example before having to make new tooling.
GaryLH
Veteran
I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Fuji is likely to c how Sony and maybe Pentax will fair in the ff market place first would be my guess right now.
Part of it could also be related to the who makes the sensor. Are they really making their own sensor or are they buying from Sony (some talk/rumor about ths last year) and putting the xtran filter around it w/ the special digital processing path?
I always thought they completely did their own.. Which would mean they would need to invest a lot of time and money into developing a ff sensor if they don't have one on the drawing board before Sony got everyone talking w/ the rx1.
Gary
Kwesi
Well-known
I agree. The uncertainty makes it hard for me to justify investing too heavily in XF mount lenses. Especially the new crop of over $800 lenses. Fuji is being very quiet about wether these lense could be used on a full frame sensor - if they make one. On the other hand both Sony and Leica have shown that there is demand. If Fuji waits too long it will be seen as second tier.