Hello John, well said. I'm also very content with announcement of the *ist D.
Regards, Hans. --- "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 _____________________________________________________________ 23a mail _____________________________________________________________ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
