guadzilla

You are right, on an absolute/rational scale, considering a $3000 bike as being entry level is indeed absurd. On that, I do not absolutely do not disagree. But I will dispute your assertion that the perception is *flawed* - it may be different, it may be not be "fair" (inasmuch as perceptions can be called fair or unfair), but it is what it is.

I think we can all agree that most of us are buying these expensive bikes not because of objective improvements in quality but perception of value. That's the reason people buy Dura Ace instead of Ultegra, top-end aero bikes, carbon wheels, etc. etc. In fact, one might say "perception is everything" (sorry, Spesh). So what drives perception?

Some products are very easy to evaluate (weight, horsepower, 0-60, MTTF, processing speed, etc). Other products are relatively harder - how do you evaluate the quality of a nice pair of shoes (say, Lobb or Berluti) or a luxury watch or even a high-end bike? Most people - you and me included - rely on proxies for quality in such case: brand reputation, brand image and how it aligns with our self-perception. And one of the major drivers of perception is price point/price tiers.

In this case, when a brand sells products ranging from $2000-4000, $3000 can be seen as mid-level. When a brand sells a product ranging from $2000-3000, $3000 is top-level. When a brand sells products ranging from $2000-$10,000, $3000 can indeed be seen as entry level. Let me take a parallel with watches. To a casual consumer - $1000 for a watch is Big Money. A $2000 Tag is a luxury watch. But to enthusiasts, a $25,000 Patek can (and is) an entry-level watch. The idea of a $25k watch being entry-level is patently absurd by all objective measures, but perception is not objective. The factors that lead a person to find a $25k Patek to be entry-level are very much valid for that person.

The "flaw" that I was referring to - in this context - was more of approaching the idea of value from a different perspective and so not having a common basis for discussion. But personally, yes, a $3000 bike does seem entry-level to me these days: mainly because of all the bells and whistles it is missing compared to the higher end frames (aero, concealed cables, carbon wheels, electronic shifting, etc etc).

On a different note: someone mentioned above that this an apple-to-oranges comparison. That is true. But that doesnt invalidate things. The benchmark for high end has shifted upwards. A quick parallel - in the 90s, a QB with a rating of 90 was elite. These days, 90 is barely average, IIRC (I am an Eagles fan for my sins, so I dont know much about good QB play in 2020). An Ultegra bike in 2010 was very close to top of the line. An Ultegra bike in 2020 is several layers behind whatever constitutes top of the line these days.

How you perceive that depends on whether you want to go by an absolute scale (well, I have 1 gear more, and the same level groupset) or by a relative scale. Neither is invalid - it all depends on your personal value/perception heuristic, and is not something that can be determined objectively.

WhyFi

Okay. yeah. I was a Canon shooter when I got in to digital 10-12 years ago. Yes, the L-series zooms have increased in price significantly since then, but that was primarily a function of new, improved versions that could out-resolve the newer, higher megapixel sensors. There was a lot of kvetching on photography forums when the new models were announced, but it mostly changed to begrudging acceptance when people saw the differences in optical performance.

Rides4Beer

Yes, most bikes are overpriced, but that's just how the market is, and so long as people are willing to buy them, the prices will continue to creep up. Personally, I don't think there's a bike out there worth more than $5k, and that bike had better have everything, electronic shifting, carbon wheels, etc. Past that and you're paying for a brand/status, and maybe very minor improvements (maybe a bit more aero, or lighter weight, etc., but nothing earth shattering). I'm amazed at people that will pay $6-8k, or even more, for a bike with mechanical shifting, but it's not my money.

I was spoiled with my first new bike purchase, a Fuji Transonic with Ultegra r8000 for $1400 brand new (should have kept that bike lol). Yes, it was on sale, but even at the time, there was no other brand/store that could come close to that value. Giant's value is good, probably the best going right now for a well known brand, which is probably why my last three bikes have been Giants (yes, I'm a bike ***** lol).

Koyote

And yet, after years of careful conditioning, I have convinced my wife that a $3000 bike is, indeed, "entry level." So maybe perception is all that really matters, after all.

guadzilla

With camera gear, I seem to have settled into the rough logic of "buy the best lenses I can afford, and the cheapest body". Back in 2004, I got myself a 500/4 and a 1Dx Mk2 or whatever. The lens was a fantastic purchase and well worth it. The camera - I got a good amount of years of use out of it, but in hindsight, a less expensive body would have worked just as well. These days, I am off DSLRs except for wildlife (where the optical finder still reigns supreme), though. Have switched to Fuji for travel/street and Olympus M4/3 for underwater. I actually am happy to carry a Fuji around all day (unlike a DSLR), and the M4/3 is a joy for travelling with scuba gear.

Have been tempted by Leica but (a) the price (b) have reached a state of camera zen where i actually only buy gear which will help me take better shots and (c) price. The Fuji does everything I want from a camera.

guadzilla

So here is my "Cranky Old Guy Yelling At The Clouds" belief about resolution/image quality - I have yet to see an aesthetically compelling image where I have gone "oh, the composition is great, the photographer nailed the exposure/focus/DoF but the image would have been better if only the lens had better resolution". IMO, given the current output formats available to us (print, online), the resolution of most competent lenses is more than sufficient for high quality photography. That was a VERY liberating feeling for me.

Now, when I buy any camera gear, I NEVER look at sharpness or contrast or whatever. With lenses, I look at size and speed of autofocus, and with bodies, how it fits in my hand and how easy it is to change the various shooting parameters I care about. It's very liberating!

(And to tie it back to perception - when it comes to zooms, I still prefer to own fixed aperture ones and am happy to pay a premium for them. No rational reason).

WhyFi

I've recently gotten to the point where I'm willing to accept that I need to be somewhat practical. I have a Sony A7II, which is compact enough for a FF, but recently bought a Zeiss Loxia 35 f/2 to replace my beloved, but ******' porky, Zeiss Distagon 35 f/1.4. The damn Distagon weighs in at ~900g and, though I love what it can do, I've been routinely leaving it at home because it's beastly burden. The new Loxia, on the other hand, has similar character, but is about a third of the weight/bulk while sacrificing one stop. I'm happy with the decision.

WhyFi

So long as people are willing to buy them, they're not overpriced.

mpath

The luxury of first world problems. Once a hobby becomes an obsession, cost becomes an inconvenience.

Koyote

I used to shoot semi-professionally many years back, and favored 35mm lenses for the 35mm format - owned a bunch of 'em, including the famous 35mm Summicron for my Leica, which was rather expensive. But my fave was an early '70s Nikkor 35mm f2. Nothing to do with sharpness, and everything to do with smooth contrast, OoF areas, no visible aberrations, etc. I bought the lens second-hand for about $90, if I recall correctly. Second fave was the 35mm on my Hexar, which was noticeably soft anywhere near wide-open -- but publishable image quality, nonetheless.

WhyFi

For the most part, I think that resolution is overrated and that not all megapixels are created equal; it's one of the big reasons that I stuck with my ol' Canon 5D for so long. Yeah, it was "only" 12mp, but they were big, fat lovely pixels and made for wonderful files that printed beautifully at any size that I would realistically consider.

When it comes to lenses, though, I am particular. There's a combination of sharpness, contrast and color that, to me, provides a certain depth. Zeiss lenses typically give me what I'm looking for, but others have certainly caught up in the sharpness and contrast department.

guadzilla

Thumbs up for the 35! That and a 24 are my preferred focal lengths for street and travel. Weirdly, I cannot seem to take a photo worth a damn with a 50mm - I still go out with a 24, 35 and 50, but pretty much most of my keepers are with the first 2. I am not sure I am hardcore enough to get a different 35 - I have the Fuji 35/1.4, but the new f1.8 (or is it f2?) is so compact and appealing.

Interesting that both you guys mention lens contrast - the only camera where I have seen the image look distinctive/difference is on a friend's Leica. But this was on the LCD screen, and I dont know how much of that was the lens vs the RAW rendering of the file.

Koyote

I was shooting B&W, doing my own developing and printing. The Summicron made a mushy mess of contrast, particularly in OoF backgrounds - very distracting. The Nikkor, on the other hand, created these buttery smooth shades and tonalities.

I am not familiar enough with digital to know if this is true, but I suspect that one could (nowadays) manipulate the contrast more easily to get a desired effect. But thirty years ago, if it wasn't there when the film came out of the developer, you weren't going to get what you wanted.

guadzilla

Interesting. I got into photography towards the tail end of the film era, but mostly with slides (Velvia for the win!) - never did darkroom work (although I have devoured Adam's 3 books). I would never have guessed that the difference in contrast was that readily obvious. You are right that digital reduces the urgency of trying to nail those little details down - post-proc covers a lot of those weaknesses. I typically dont like to spend too much time faffing around in PS unless i rate the image as portfolio-grade, but basic contrast tweaking is pretty much par for the course now.

WhyFi

I see it in print and on the screen. Early on, I was pretty skeptical of rendering differences but, as I flipped through photos online and then checked EXIF of those that piqued my interest (in terms of image quality, not composition, subject matter, etc), I saw a pretty clear pattern to my preferences with Zeiss, which holds a relatively small market share, accounting for the bulk of the images.

Related note, if you want to see online pissing matches that would make the 41 hang their collective heads in shame, do a search for "Zeiss 3D Pop" and buckle your belt.

WhyFi

It really depends on what you're looking for - you can gussy up some aspects, but not others. It's no effort at all to manipulate global contrast, but the fine contrast transitions (that interest me in particular) are much, much more difficult to account for in post processing.

Sy Reene

Foveon for the win! Love the ability to use color filters on the DP2M when shooting B&W just like the old film days.

HTupolev

The shift in passer rating over time has been heavily driven by changes in offensive schemes, and to some extent changes to rules and enforcement (like how much defensive backs are permitted to disrupt receiving routes). There are a lot of factors combining in all this, the largest perhaps having to do with how player specializations have developed.

A really extreme example of this is with the military academies in college football. They impose weight or BMI limits on their students, which makes it very difficult for them to recruit the sorts of big offensive linemen who excel in pass protection. So they often use very old-school offensive schemes which mostly involve run blocking and don't rely on those sorts of players existing, and often throwing the ball much less than other teams.

Basically, the situation is a lot more complex than "the top QBs have gotten better at playing football."

Maelochs

Never did film .... the cost was prohibitive (well ... I did a tiny bit of film but never seriously.)

My new boss just leant me a Sony a-7 III to play with for a few weeks. Don't know a thing about it yet.

QB ratings are way too specific to play styles, as Guadzilla notes. I used to think Joe Montana, could with the team and offensive style at SF, was the pinnacle. Nowadays tight ends are almost as big as defensive ends and many QBs are the size of linebackers---and almost as willing to absorb contact. The old roles of QB no longer exist. No way to compare.

Maelochs

I feels sort of stupid, now .... I diverted what could have been a 20-page thread about bike value, perception, significant others .... and one that was about to maybe get good and spicy, reaching that coveted Three Mediator Warning status ....

Blame BF. I wrote a long post about actual "entry-level" bikes complete with multiple links and gallons of snark, and the site ate it. Instead I posted some bland, lame crap which got us all talking about cameras.

On another hand though .... wow I didn't know there were good mirrorless cameras. After a couple okay, mirrorless, this Sony is pretty alright, indeed.

You guys with your darkroom technique .... you call yourselves "artists," I call you dinosaurs (out of jealousy, but still .... )



So you think just because you can shoot better than me and ride better than me, you're all that?

Koyote

I sold off all the camera and darkroom gear in 2005, when it seemed inevitable that its value would crater due to digital's rapidly rising resolution. And I also figured that a person only needs one expensive and time-consuming hobby, and I was into cycling.

WhyFi

I've been shooting primarily with adapted vintage lenses for the last 8 years or so, mostly C/Y mount Contax, and mirrorless was a godsend to me. Short flange so just about lens can be adapted, a viewfinder that stays bright when stopped down, the ability to zoom in to confirm focus, etc. I hear that the A7 III has a vastly improved AF system, but I don't even have an AF lens to use, so no desire to upgrade on account of that...

guadzilla

Indeed, nor was I implying otherwise, if your point above is addressed to me.

It was an analogy to illustrate how the overall scale/curve can affect perception: Ultegra in 2010 occupies a different position than Ultegra in 2020 - just as a QB with a rating of 90 occupied a different position in the 1990s vs now.

The bit about good QB play was just a throwaway joke.

sch

Looking at the higher end, pro tour bikes run in the $10-14k range and are, for most of us imperceptibly different from
what are sold in the $5-7k range, maybe 500g lighter. Then compare what you get in a bicycle for what you get
here: https://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/en/mo...t/r1250rs.html
Considering the amount of assembly/machining/foundry/finish work involved in the BMW compared to what is
involved in the higher end bicycles, which really differ very little from a manufacturing POV (not rider POV) from
the $2k or so bicycles it makes you wonder.
(FWIW my last motorcycle was a used CB175 45 yrs ago).

vane171

I once wrote here on BF very similar comment as to how market economy operates, what determines the selling price of anything and all that. But you said it even better, more cogently, if I recall my post from memory. What I also try to argue in such cases is to try and 'think oneself into the other side shoes'. Typically consumers tend to eye themselves as playthings or even hostages to producers but the same view of oneself can be taken by producers as well.

Only I wouldn't be so harsh on OP, like to make out of his post that he is or may be new to America and capitalism, when Americans themselves, except for very rare minority, don't know what capitalism is (and for that mater, the rest of the Western world with them). Else why would the West be in the hole it is in and why it would be sliding into that hole for the last century, give or take some decades.