hi, what evidence is there to support your theory that the bodies are being "subsidized" with lens sales profits? If they are selling a lot of theses lenses to Leica users, why would they even need to offer a body to sell them, let alone sell the bodies at a loss by subsidizing them? jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: 85mm f1.8 SMCT on ebay : $400+ Note that Cosina is making a killing selling LTM and M mount lenses that are almost as good as the Leica's for 1/5th the price, and selling these to a lot of Leica users (Cosina makes the only available 15mm and 12mm lenses for RF's as well). They certainly are subsidizing the bodies with the lenses (And it helps that there was little engineering required for the bodies, really just designing a good rangefinder system) -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > I doubt that was the case of the Epson RD-1, or any Voightlander Bessa > film model for that matter as they were aimed directly at the existing > Leica s and l lens base. I doubt that Cosina doesn't at least break > even, (cover R&D, all manufacturing costs and return on investment), on > every unit sold. They have to or they wouldn't stay in business for > long. > > Anthony Farr wrote: >> Actually, what I was trying to say is that the price of DSLRs is not >> the real, standalone price of a unique product. It is a subsidised >> price, where the manufacturer will accept a reduced profit or even a >> loss in order to tap the more lucrative lens sales that should ensue, >> or to deny a sale to a rival. >> >> If you propose a product that quarantines the manufacturer from his >> extended income, and he sees that he cannot hope to sell enough >> cameras at the real, unsubsidised price to break even, then he won't >> bother at all to bring it to market. The only way to circumvent this >> situation is to emulate the Arabian prince, and privately fund the >> project up front with no profit motive attached. The maker could, >> probably would still decline the commission as it would not enhance >> his position in his chosen marketplace. >> >> Personally, I've always liked modular cameras, and would jump at the >> multi-platform camera described elsewhere in this thread. But that >> faces the same hurdle as a dedicated M42 DSLR. I don't believe any >> maker wants to assist their own customers to purchase lucrative >> accessories from a competitor. >> >> Regards, >> Anthony Farr >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of J. C. O'Connell >> Sent: Thursday, 22 February 2007 7:39 PM >> To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' >> Subject: RE: 85mm f1.8 SMCT on ebay : $400+ >> >> I dont agree that a M42 DSLR based on licensed existing DSLR body and >> just modified to do M42 auto apeture would be very expensive to >> develop or produce. And it certainly would be nothing like the cost >> of a one-off exotic lens if thats what your trying to say. >> jco >> >> >> >> > > -- 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
