The *istD was a "bottom of the line" DSLR camera when It was the only one they ever made due to Its features and prices in the overall DSLR Camera market. When the newer models came out the Bottom just went further down at real cheap prices. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:44 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
