On 3/01/06 5:26 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote: > >> Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they >> (Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax >> had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera >> was on their own and got back to the drawing board. >> Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are >> actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. > > Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax screwed up was > in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in design I > find > it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much R&D into a product when > the pricing of one of the most fundamental of the components wasn't pre- > negotiated. Surely the CCD pricing would have been a factor for the project > being given the nod in the first place, surly it would have had to have > theoretically been proven a viable product before any prototypes were > produced? You obviously still believe that you were tripped by Pentax, eh? :-) This subject is only good for the entertainment purpose, and won't satisfy the people's need to know more about the "current and future" products. Nevertheless, I do not wish to give PDMLers any misleading info and I might have to clarify a bit. I am beginning to remember that all these things, including the Kyocera's approach to Pentax as well as the reason behind the selection of Philips sensor at the time, were actually posted and discussed to death when MZ-D was disclosed. No new info here. Perhaps people like Pal might remember the detail and even archived some :-). Thinking back, although my memory is becoming vague, the story about Philips approaching Pentax was conveyed to me from one of my contacts who referred to one of the articles in Japanese photo journals (Kyocera approaching Pentax was from the horse's mouth though). I am not sure your "pre-negotiated" theory might be that simple. Bob's post accurately traced what had happened then. That was the time no one else, not even Canon was doing any good on DSLR, let alone FF DSLR. It is entirely conceivable that Philips saw an opportunity to sell their CCDs and approached Pentax (Canon would have brushed them away anyway as they must have been working on their own sensor). But it might have been a collaboration agreement between Pentax and Philips. Pentax had been searching the partner (HP came to my mind) and their past glory of being the first to produce SLRs might have been in their mind when they embarked on the development of the first DSLR. In any case, I do not think it was anything unusual that the cutting edge projects ended up in cost overrun. It happens so many times. Perhaps the Philips' sensor was so primitive initially so that Pentax had to demand so many changes. There must have been any number of reasons why they killed it. But I do not think it was because they did not have a "pre-negotiated cost". I am sure they did but it escalated. Perhaps Pentax were tricked by Philips to have ended up sharing a lot of cost. Who knows. However, I firmly believe that the killing of the MZ-D was not entirely the cost decision. Pentax were apparently dead serious in getting it out in the market and the production line was ready. Had kyocera marketed more refined model and the size of Pentax version, and with the better line up of lenses 9which they did not have), the history may have been different. At somewhere around $10,000 they actually sold some. But Pentax probably chickened out, which, as somebody else said here, may very well have been the better decision. One thing we know is that Pentax did have the technical prowess to build and sell the first FF DSLR. Perhaps their size and the management dictated that they could not really afford to take the risk associated with the DSLR at the time. Ken
