Shel, There's three costs involved. One is the parts to manufacture the aperture simulator. This is in the range of a few cents to a couple dollars per body, probably on the lower side. The second is the engineering cost, which is amortized over the number of bodies built. This is likely in the $1-2 dollar a body area for intitial design, and distinctly more to add it to one of the current designs. The final is the cost to the consumer (after markups and desired profit margin of the manufacturer, distributor and retailer). This is where the $25 comes from.
-Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: > <SIGH> > > Not all KM lenses are "perfectly good" on APS-C sensors. Some work better > than others. That said, it's my understanding that in some situations > lenses optimized for the digital camera are the better choice, regardless > of how well an older equivalent may work with film. Thus far I have found > one of the Pentax jewels (K28/3.5) to be less than stellar on the istDS. A > little more testing and experience is in order, but it may be one of the > lenses that fits the description. > > Unless I'm mistaken, the price of this "missing body part" has escalated > substantially since this thread started - from a few cents to $25.00. > Rampant inflation is upon us. Blame it on George Bush. > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: J. C. O'Connell > > >>How many times are we going to rehash this. If one >>Has to buy all new lenses it defeats the purpose of >>Staying with pentax. Canon has a much better lens >>Market, new and used. I cant understand how you >>Can defend pentax on this, replace many many perfectly good >>High quality Pentax lenses because of a crippled >>Body mount missing a $25 part? Just plain Dumb > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
