Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:58:07 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Alexander wrote: > >> Why so? As I said, it is is a new genre of DSLRs. >> Sure, there will be cameras with higher MPs but those >> will be also much, much more expensive. People on >> this list compare different cameras and lenses as if >> they were all for free :-) > It is just that I don't think Pentax will be left alone in this niche, > let alone being first. I see absolutely no reasons why Pentax should be > able to undercut the "volume" DSLR makers on price. I think there are several reasons: - The D10 has a magnesium body, while the *ist D has not. So I ~assume~ it will be cheaper to produce. - IMO the *ist D seems to be made for the mass market, like the film *ist; I expect the DSLR market to explode once the prices come down; I consider the *ist D as a step into that direction. - Pentax undercut other volume makers on price in the past: E.g. M-series cameras, zoom P&S cameras, and also with some optios. Why shouldn't they do it once again? Sure there will soon be other makers with economic DSLRs but the market is growing fast. Competition will help to enlarge this market. >> For being "indistinguishable from Nikon": The N80 has >> been a big success for Nikon for good reasons. > But theres no reason to asume a similar Pentax would have sold as well. Firstly, it is not exactly "similar" and secondly there is nothing wrong with copying a successful concept. Not doing so would ultimately mean reinventing the wheel. > And besides, Nikon gets away with murder: the F50 was market leader in > several markets proving that if you have the name and distribution it > doesn't matter what you sell. That's right, they have a marketing advantage here. But this does not mean that other cameras will have no chance. Let's wait and see. >> I think the camera is a good move and will be a >> success. It has a very clear user interface and can do >> a lot. And for my part I don't like overdesigned >> muscle cameras either. > > I think you're making the mistake of assuming that having the product > make the customers come. It isn't like that. The danger is that nobody > will notive this camera except those married to the K-mount. Sure making a good product is not enough. OTOH having a good product does certainly not prevent the customers from buying it. Convincing products will sell easier. Besides pentax does not have a such a bad name. Their problem is the high end. This is because they didn't provide any upgrade to LX and PZ-1 users for a fairly long time. But this is not the primary target group of the *ist D. The primary target group are MZ-shooters and those who want to upgrade from a P&S camera directly to a DSLR (and not via a film SLR). > Never before have Pentax made such derivative design as the *ist. Great > engineering, great packaging, and probably great price dissapearing > into a body that looks like a Nikon F80 (a camera that will win no design > prices) or, God forbid, that Sigma DSLR that I can't remember what > looks like. I think that is exaggerated. The *ist D looks a bid like the ZX/MZ-5 if you ask me. That was my first impression. It definitely looks "Pentax*istic" to me (size an proportions) (but may be not so much as the MZ-S, agreed). > And again, I don't think that making whats after all is an expensive > digital camera indistingushable from a popular dirt cheap film slr is > actually going to convince anyone. I think in fact it is a very simple and effective design. > > Pål Enjoy, Alexander __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
