Well, first of all I agree with the earlier poster who suggested that there was no way a booth puffer would be privy to future product plans.
Then there's the fact that the original article is light on details; the 3k could be street price, wholesale price, manufacturing price, or even just the cost to Pentax of the sensor. Does FF mean size of a 35mm negative, or size of a 645 negative? But you can't use two-year-old prices to discuss pricing in this year's (or next year's) marketplace. > Rob wrote: > >On 5 Nov 2003 at 17:21, Mark Erickson wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> Check out this posting over at photo.net: > >> > >> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006R06 > >> > >> Interesting.... > > > >Laughable, so they can't produce a FF 35mm DSLR for under 6k but they are > >aiming to produce a FF 645 for under 3k. They'll have the market sown up > given > >what everyone else is charging for FF 645 digi-backs :-) > > > >Rob Studdert > > It is kind of odd, isn't it? Seems like Pentax would want to get in > the game to stop current 645 users from defecting to other systems. > Just matching the Kodak or Fuji digital back price would put them > in decent competitive shape, wouldn't it? Anyone know how MF digital > back sales compare to 35mm (and smaller) Digital SLR sales? > > --Mark >
