graywolf wrote:
Ah yes, Pentax should sell the camera at a loss. A couple of hundred dollars a camera is nothing to worry about. After all they can make it up in film sales.
--
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out with the 300D at < $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the lucrative market share it might have given them.
rg
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 13 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'll bet that Canon has an "economy" version (less than $5000.00) full-frame DSLR already designed and ready to go into production... as soon as they need to sell it. That'll be when a serious full-frame competitor appears and not a moment before.
Spot on, this is how the microprocessor industry works, I've been privy to information discussed under NDAs in the past (the market is being manipulated constantly). I am sure that the DSLR market is the same, look how damned fast the 300D hit the market when Pentax finally delivered.
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
