Cost vs Quality Based on Test Results

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on September 7, 2011 at 5:58am

Cost is not always a measure of quality, sometimes it is a measure of exclusivity and sometimes it is an indication of anticipated demand.  If you amortize development cost over 1000 units, the cost per unit is high, if you amortize the same cost over a million units, the cost drops dramatically.  If you amortize development over 10,000 units and sell a million units, your gross margin rises dramatically.

 

The body affects the lens performance.  The same lens with a better body may score better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg maklae on September 7, 2011 at 7:02am

I totally agree with your economics of scale. That being said, are "kit" lenses priced lower because a known quanity will be used, rather than they being of "inferior quality".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on September 7, 2011 at 8:55am

Probably a combination of factors.  I have Canon gear, I imagine most other manufacturers do the same things.  My kit lens that came with a 30D is very light, mostly light plastic.  My L series lenses are all heavy and contain metal.  They probably have more elements and more exotic glass as well. 

The current crop of Canon cameras seem to come with a variety of kit lens options, from the basic cheap 18-55 mm lens to a 24-105 mm L model.  You can get a 60D body with the EF-S 18-200 mm for instance, or you can purchase the lens on its own.  It seems like a really nice lens.  This suggests it is not just about sticking some cheap lens with a body and calling it a kit.

Manufacturers generally try to predict how many units they will sell, when, and what the price will be.  This is used to determine the budget for a project, both for design and for gearing up the factory to make product.  It also determines the target consumer and the product quality.

• ▶ Reply