Hello,
I am not agree with this !
People like Canon because the trademark is known!
If Pentax was also known to be a professional trademark, the MZ-S would be
avaible since 1995 !
Regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Corro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: lundi 26 février 2001 18:19
Subject: Re: MZ-S worth
> Mike, adding two cents to your point:
> How many professionals buy cameras and how many commited amateurs are
there
> in the world. I suspect that is better to sell a u$s 500 camera to
> 10.000.000 people than a u$s 2000 to 50.000..... so Pentax goes for the
> first option. Intelligent move :-)
>
> Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:45 AM
> Subject: MZ-S worth
>
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Someone said
> >"I simply find it absurd to even imagine that Pentax or any
> >other manufacturer (Nikon and the F100), would make a body out
> >of something that is in any way, less than satisfactory for a
> >pro caliber camera."
> >
> >Once again we come back to definitions. My point in bringing in
> >comparisons to racing vehicles in the "body shell" thread was to
> >point out that "professionals" have different parameters to
> >"amateurs". If a machine disintegrates on the finish line after
> >winning the race - well, that's the price to be paid. It's
> >"done the job", the cost possibilities were factored into the
> >equation before the person decided to race and it was decided
> >that the cost was worth it.
> >
> >Trying to carry this over into camera construction; how long
> >should a "professional" model last? One year in
> >photojournalism? With a 75,000 cycle shutter life this equates
> >to 40 films per week before significant repair/servicing.
> >Certainly two years would seem to be the maximum at this rate
> >for any current model. All well and good, but I suspect many
> >businesses would take the view that the camera had "done its
> >job" by then and get rid of it. (This is where the racing
> >engine analogy falls down somewhat - all other things being
> >equal, repair/replacement of the shutter and film transport
> >should restore the camera to full functionality)
> >
> >Now if you were the design manager of a camera company, what
> >would your perspective be on a "professional" model which you
> >knew was going to be sold on after a few years at most by a
> >large proportion of your customers. Once they do that, it is
> >out of your ken and you are competing for repeat sales to the
> >original customer. Are you really going to build a body which
> >will last a decade or more, with all the associated cost? Or
> >will you go for the option which gives you a cost-effective
> >chance of lasting for the anticipated ownership of the buyer? I
> >strongly suspect the latter.
> >
> >One of the reasons I like Pentax is that the level of
> >compatability between different models leads me to think that
> >they are more interested in the committed amateur (and we all
> >are, aren't we?) than the "professional" market. It would be
> >really disappointing for me if they moved away from that.
> >
> >mike
> >
> >-
> >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> >
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
