Quite likely I would think... either scenario... economy of scale or subsidization.
Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec >Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:22 -0600 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom C" >Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec > > > > >Interesting question. > >>from BH Photo: > >>Canon 300/2.8 IS US$3900 (in stock) > >>Pentax FA 300/2.8 non-is $US4550 (accepting orders) > >> > >> > > Don't let the cat out of the bag now, > >Some time ago (probably close to 15 years), a friend was looking to get >an 80-200/2.8 lens. He was a long time Pentax user, but he found when >pricing things out that he could get a Nikon 80-200/2.8 for about >$700.00 less than the equivalent Pentax lens. >Based on that one price disparity, he is now a Nikon user. >I suspect that there is an economy of scale at work with the higher end >glass. Canon sells more 300/2.8s and so can sell them individually for >less money. >They may also have the resources to subsidize the higher end stuff from >sales of lower end equipment, not that I would suggest for a moment that >this is what they do. > >William Robb > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
