Godfrey DiGiorgi > On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:34 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > You don't need to be a camera engineer > > to see that in the overall cost of designing > > and building these cameras that this INCREDIBLY > > simple and cheap part removal COULD NOT > > result in any signifigant cost savings due > > to the much more massive engineering costs required > > for the rest of the camera and also the much > > much higher overall parts costs. ... > > You asked me to respond directly to your statements so I suppose I > will, just this once (again). > > In the design of a computer logic board intended to sell in total > number of units far less than a camera body, I've been at the > engineering meetings where three hours debate was spent on whether to > go with one or another design based on the cost/benefits of saving > $0.03 cents on component cost. You've said (repeatedly, ad nauseam) > that this functionality could be achieved with a $5 part. > > To put a $5 part into the design without damn good reason from > Marketing, Engineering and Support requires something like an act of > god in the face of ultimate catastrophe. That is the reality of > manufacturing decisions when it comes to mass produced devices today.
Supposing it was strictly an economic decision on Pentax's part: It's not just the $5 part (if that is indeed the cost of the thing). There's the little screws, the rest of the mechanism to operate the part, the electrical circuitry to operate the mechanism, the support stuff for the electrical circuitry (power needs, circuit board additions etc) and the labor costs to put it all into the camera. I think they saved a hell of a lot more than $5 per body. We also don't know what their tooling costs were. Maybe this change allowed them to use simpler cheaper tooling. Parts may have been stamped three times instead of six because of the change. Pentax is trying to compete in a tough market and they had to hit a competitive price point. They decided that they would gain market advantage by building the cameras cheaper and the cost advantage would offset the limited functionality with old lenses. There is still the open question as to whether there was an engineering advantage with the change. Tom Reese
