Obviously you've never used the *istD, which is a serious amateur camera, not a bottom of the line model. With solid build, dual-control wheels, PC Sync and a grip, it's hardly a bottom of the line model (that would be the *istDL, two models later).
-Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > This is the third time I have posted my thery on this. > I think that Pentax's first DSLR (*istD) was trying > To be the cheapest possible model they could hit the > DSLR scene with. In that case, it's a BOTTOM OF THE LINE > Model ( even though I was their only model at the time) > And the removal/cost cutting made sense. I DO NOT > Agree that this small cost savings is needed or the > Consequent K/M lens features removal is desireable in the higher- > End top of the line models that are now starting to > Trikle out of the Pentax factories.. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Pål Jensen > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:30 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > If what you say is true, don't you think they would have done it? Do > they > deliberately loose sales over a mere $5? Are they just stupid or evil? > Don't you think the reason that they don't include feature in the > current > cameras is because they see no financial rewards in doing so? > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <pdml@pdml.net> > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 4:16 PM > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > > Manual labor in asia ia probably cheaper than robotics > Most likely at the qty(s) produced due to high > Setup costs. K1000s had a whole bunch of itty bitty > Parts and were hand assemebled essentially and sold > For dirt cheap. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Pål Jensen > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:22 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > Shel: > ----- Original Message ----- >> How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? Does the $5.00 > reflect >> only the cost of materials, or does it include any manufacturing and > setup >> costs to implement the item in cameras that were designed not to > include >> the part? > > > If it cost $5 and you sell a million cameras thats five million. > I personally believe that the lens mount without mechanical coupling are > > more suited for robotic assembly. Mechanical linkages needs precision > and is > probably far more expensive to manufacture I suspect. Therefore I don't > think we will see a completely compatible lens mount in anything but a > top-of-the-line body if at all. > Personally, I find this issue trivial. Although it would have been nice > with > complete comaptibility with K and M lenses, Pentax after all fully > support > all lenses made after 1983. Thats best in business. > > Pål > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
