Bruce wrote: > In the US, if both companies were on equal footing that would be true. > The basic problem is that a DSLR costing $1500 USD is not inexpensive. > The MZ-S at $800 is not selling well compared to a Nikon F100 at over > $1000.
True enough, but lets not forget that the MZ-S was never intended as competing head on against the F100; the cameras are obviously too different for that. The MZ-S would never been mistaken for a Nikon and was basically about taking the MZ-5n interface to a new level integrated with more features. However, the *ist D is going to compete head on with the appropriate Nikon and Canon offerings and is similar in every major respect except for a smaller size which might be an advantage or not possibly depending on who you ask. And, as you say, the price of $1500 range, which is realistic, isn't going to make it easier as this price makes it the most expensive K-mount AF camera ever. > I think that people willing to spend $1500 would take a hard > look at the companies and system. At this point, Canon has a much > better story to tell. Current track record D30, D60, 1D, 1DS and now > 10D - IS and USM lenses, broader line of lenses, pro support, well > known brand name and visible working pros using the system. Pentax > doesn't have any of those things. True, and not only because they cost $1500, but because switching to digital is a major turning point for most. Major turing point are the crossroads where most are switching systems. You need a carrot. >Mostly they are known for P&S and > entry level SLR's. People who buy current Pentax products are not > going to spend $1500 on a DSLR. People who have old lenses that they > haven't used in years are not going to spend $1500 on a DSLR. They > are actively using something else or are not ready to spend that much > on a DSLR. $1500 may be inexpensive for a DSLR, but it is still very > expensive for a camera. The *ist D is going to be the most expensive > camera that Pentax has put out in a long time (The last of the LX, I > wouldn't really count as a main stream product - more collector/Pentax > purist). So, either the *ist D needs to be obviously better spec'ed > than the 10D or obviously better priced. Based on everything we know, > the *ist D is NOT obviously better spec'ed. Therefore, it need to be > OBVIOUSLY better priced to really take off. Agreed. It just think that the *ist D had been infinitely more sexy than it is, and had a less stupid name, it would have helped a lot. > Mind you, I'm not saying it won't sell, just that it won't make any > serious inroads into the general DSLR market. Us Pentaxians will > support it, but we are small in number and only a small percentage of > us will buy it (reality check). Many are waiting for a lower price, > version 2 (bugs worked out) or full frame sensor. > > So I am saying that there needs to be an OBVIOUS reason to choose the > *ist D over the 10D Canon. So if there feature set is very similar > and their price is very similar, what is so different? The Brand for > one, and in this country that pushes people to Canon. Size is a > difference (I'm glad that it is smaller), but I'm not hearing or > reading that it makes any material difference. Oh, yeah, the 10D has > a magnesium outer shell - big plus towards the 10D. Thats what I've been saying too and as someone, a rare animal indeed, who actually buy Pentax stuff new, I'm carefully judging the alternatives and I'm not convinced. > So you tell me, how is Pentax going to turn heads and get people to > buy the *ist D over the Canon 10D? By putting it into an irresistible, sexy body (look at the Optio S). Who would you date; a sexy playboy model or an ugly rocket scientist? Im shallow enough to make that decision a no brainer, and so are most people. Pål
