Gee Stephen, suckers for a $500 lens prototye? I'd say the M9's a worse value proposition.
End-user value is perceived in two ways. First of all what kind of meaning it has for them. Second of all, what the sale price is in relation to the
perceived production cost; nobody likes being ripped off. Any professional that has their customers complain about asking $25 for a 6×4" print can tell you about this.
The problem in that sense, for this lens, is the extremely simple (mid 19th century, after all) design. A Petzval design is 4 spherical elements. With four elements you don't even need coatings. There's no AF mechanism. There's no aperture mechanism (I don't call the Waterhouse stops a
mechanism).
Nikon is one of the more expensive mass-producers of lenses, and they charge on average around $100 per element, set in a barrel that is full of complex focus helixii, motor drives, electronics and a set of curved aperture blades.
This project has Zenit, known manufacturer of Russian budget equipment go a full 25% above Nikon pricing with a design that is infinitely cheaper and simpler than the average modern SLR lens. For the casual observer, $500 seems very high.
