Arrrrrggggghhh! It's back. It's Halloween, and the thread from hell is back!!
On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: > Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and > purchased it. > It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I >> knew a >> number of people in the automotive business many years back, and >> they'd >> watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of >> more than a >> million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys >> discuss >> costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about >> spacing >> bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four >> instead of five >> bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt >> (which >> seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units >> needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt >> during >> manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. >> >> John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than >> some may >> realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the >> cost of the >> steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you >> say. >> Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may >> be more >> rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The >> truth is, we >> _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR >> camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. >> >> I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is >> just >> blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some >> abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, >> including the >> aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the >> design has >> been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion >> of shake >> reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the >> true cost >> of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the >> peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, >> those >> numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. >> >> BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual >> assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as >> much of >> that type of work as possible. >> >> Shel >> >> >> > > > -- > 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
