So are you saying you believe that the total cost To pentax would be $35 per body to implement and that its Been removed only to save/profit Pentax $35 per body? If it only costs them $35 total then the actual part cost is Probably about $5 like I stated before.
If you do believe pentax is only saving/profiting $35 Per body, then you don't understand this entire Thread, I am saying that I will pay much more than $35 for the features back that K/M lenses lose on this cost reduced (cheaper) DSLRS. JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: The JCO survey > Be more specific please. Body cost reduction > And or new lens selling profits or whatever? > Your being way too vague. I already have posted > My best theory on this , so whats yours? My Pentax sales rep friend summed it up rather well. Here is what he sais "It's all a matter of cost. Pentax would rather take that $35 or so and reduce the cost of the camera to make them more competitive. Or, add the $35 to the corporate promotional effort or better yet, drop it into the 'PROFITS' drawer. That $35 or so is not a RETAIL amount, but a COST amount if I remember correctly. It is clear that having a higher level of lens compatibility WILL NOT buy any greater sales success of K100D or K110D or K10D. Pentax is finding that they can't make enough of any of these cameras to satisfy the demand." William Robb -- 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
