Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > I didn't say it was a knock off and it doesn't matter if it's similar or > not. It doesn't matter if it has the best interface know to humanity, > because people don't start with user interfaces, or any other technical > detail. A digital SLR, for the general population, is just an expensive > electronic gadget. They want to buy from a company that they know makes > "good" electronic gadgets, or a camera brand that has such good name > recognition that they already know it. Pentax is neither. Pentad's name > recognition starts with Spotmatic and ends with K1000, with nothing in > between. If Pentax's DSLR sales are just dependent on long time Pentax > users then they'll sell about as many as Minolta did of their Maxxum 9's.
Bruce, It seems to me that Pentax is a well-run, profitable and generally successful company, especially in comparison to some larger companies who sell DSLRs at a loss and have done for years now. The company's main market is in point-and-shoot cameras; it manages to sell both 35mm and digital P&S cameras in large numbers and at a profit. It also manages to do this without spending vast amounts of money on advertising. This sounds to me like a well-managed company, and I fail to see how your criticism of it can be justified. Whether the *ist D sells profitably or not will not depend solely on numbers sold. It will depend crucially on the profit margin on each sale. If Pentax can offer the *ist D at an attractive price point, it will sell well. In other words, if the *ist D and two kit lenses can be had for the same price as the Canon EOS 10D (or less) then it will sell. Our enlightened self-interest in the success of the Pentax DSLR line depends on two things. One is whether their product(s) meet(s) our needs at a price we can afford. The other is whether Pentax is making money with DSLRs, because an unprofitable Pentax is unlikely to survive, let alone offer us the equipment we want to buy. Not being at the very sharp end of digital technology, and being economical with the advertising budget, has served Pentax pretty well so far, and the *ist D is a beautiful product. I'm very happy with its announcement. But why aren't you? I would also venture the question, if the Pentax brand gives you as much dyspepsia as it appears to, why do you buy it and why do you discuss it on here? Maybe you would be happier with a camera brand that kept your blood pressure somewhat lower? Forgive me if I have misunderstood your dissatisfaction. Regards, John
