I think that Nikon is cheaper because of name recognition. It draws people
with extra $$ but little knowledge. More sold than actually used. More
available in the used market. Olympus tends to draw knowlegable people.
Fewer were made and purchased. Fewer available to the people who appreciate
those high quality lenses. The price goes up. Supply and Demand is coupled
to quality in this case.
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] OT: Nikon Envy, Part 17-Affordable super-teles?
> Can't agree with the supply and demand rule here, are there not ten times
as
> much Nikon user around as Olympus? Why Nikon stuffs are cheaper? Actually
> the top Olympus lenses are much more expensive than the Nikon equivalent
and
> the common Olympus lens is similar and even cheaper than the Nikon
> equivalent. I suspect it is the quality of the lens count.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Brokaw" <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > But my experiences in pawn shops, camera stores, and camera shows is
that
> > there is probably ten times as much Nikon stuff around as Olympus. That
> > means prices for some of the stuff are lower than equivalent Oly
> equipment,
> > just supply and demand. IMO the price difference doesn't begin to make
up
> > for having to use the Nikon stuff. I have 'picked up along the way' a
few
> > Nikon items, and they're solid and serviceable, but I am not going to
> trade
> > any OM-4t's for F-100's or F-5's.
> > --
> >
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|