Rudeofus said:
Claiming that my assertion is flat out wrong is a statement as well, and requires just as much evidence - of which you have provided not a trace so far. Again, childish insults and speculation about my orifices do not constitute evidence.
The key difference, one that apparently eludes you, is that
you made the claim. Actually, you made multiple unsubstantiated claims:
1) "
Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off."
How do you know anything about peoples' motivations? How do you know about
my motivations. It's also worth pointing out that you are the one who went down the path of insulting someone, right out of the gate.
2) "
They used to [buy big whites to brag], but this trend is going down - as shown by Lensvid's charts."
LensVid's charts show nothing of the sort. Period. Full stop.
Or it should have been...but you went on to cite several other 'sources', all of which are anecdotal, and some of which don't even support your claim.
Rudeofus said:
The evidence I provided you with would well constitute empirical data...
What evidence? You provided anecdotes.
Your photo club? In my photo club, five years ago there were about 20 members using 500/4 or longer lenses. Today, there are >30 (just those with long+fast lenses, not counting those with the Tam/Sig 150-600 variable aperture zooms). That increase is driven largely by newer/younger members, and more than countered several of the more senior members who stopped using the big lenses after developing arthritis (and some of those switched to mirrorless, for that reason). But...you don't find me citing that as evidence that sales of big white lenses (or their black Nikon counterparts) are increasing, do you? No. Becuase that's an anecdote, not data...and I know the difference between them.
Forum threads? The two most popular threads on these boards are the Show your Bird Portraits thread (>15K posts, ~4.7 million views) and the BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY thread (~5K posts, ~1.5 million views). A substantial fraction of posts on those threads are with big white lenses. But...you don't find me citing that as evidence that big white lenses are maintaining their popularity or that people's main use for big white lenses is to take pictures with them, do you? No. Because that's an anecdote, not data...and I know the difference between them.
Rudeofus said:
My observation was, that the crowd of gear worshipers has shrunk substantially during the last couple of years.
Oh, your observation. There were over 11 million ILCs shipped around the world last year...that's quite a crowd of buyers. How many of those 11 million have you personally observed? How many have you questioned about their motivations? Are your observations of the 'crowd of gear worshipers' worldwide? Across many countries? One country? A city? Your photo club? Or perhaps only in your own imagination?
Rudeofus said:
I finally found some real numbers
I see. You made a conclusion, then you went out and found some actual data, and decided those data support your conclusion. They don't.
"1. Total number of interchangeable lenses sold dropped from 30.4 million in 2012 down to 21.7 million in 2015 and even further down to 19.2 million in 2016"
Well, the total number of ILC's shipped has dropped, and since most ILCs ship with a kit lens, obviously the total number of lenses has dropped. In fact, the number of ILCs dropped by 8.5 million from 2012 to 2016, and based on Canon's approximate 1.4:1 ratio of lenses to bodies sold, the corresponding drop in lenses would be ~12 million, close enough to the actual 11.2 million unit drop in lenses that the drop in ILC shipments likely accounts for the vast majority of the drop in lens shipments.
"2. Average lens price dropped across the board between 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that newer cameras tend to ask for better and more expensive lenses to fully exploit their potential"
Why are you only looking at a single year's change? Over the 2012 - 2016 period, the average unit price has gone up ~30%. Even for the one year you selected, the average lens price dropped across the board dropped by a whopping ¥1900, that's ~US$18. Given that the average lens price in 2016 was US$370, it's clear that the 'big white lenses' are a meaningless contribution to that average. If CIPA reported median prices, that would perhaps be slightly more meaningful.
"3. Peak price per unit was somewhere between 2014 and 2015, while higher economic growth in 2016/2017 should have resulted in more sales of more expensive lenses in 2016"
The unit prices for 2013 - 2016 were 38.3, 38.4, 40.9, and 39.0 (in thousands of ¥) – there's no 'peak' there, that's essentially flat.
" The numbers shown for 35mm fixed focal and special purpose lenses completely dwarf the total number of any lens seen at any sport event. I sure hope for Canon, that they sell more white superteles than what you see at this year's Olympic games."
The numbers shown for 35mm fixed focal and special purpose lenses have an average unit price of less than $300, meaning big white lenses are even less of a contribution to that category that to ILC lenses as a whole.
None of the above has any significant relevance to the sales of big white lenses, and absolutely no relevance —none at all— to the motivation of people buying camera gear.
To summarize: you made claims that you cannot substantiate, you have either no evidence or evidence that does not support your claims. In other words, you were talking out of your ass (I will be explicit, since apparently 'nether orifice' was too subtle a reference for you).
I was wrong about one thing, though...I didn't think my opinion of your ability to understand and interpret information could fall any lower. Pathetic is no longer adequate. Wretchedly abominable might come closer.