Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 10, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Nowhere, no how, does it cost $1000 per pound to move anything, save perhaps cocaine from Columbia. It would if you had to build a plane big enough to carry it :) - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 10, 2006, at 4:40 AM, Adam Maas wrote: So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs Most consumer goods travel by sea, unless they need to get there yesterday. Retailers apply far too much price-pressure to allow air freight unless there's no alternative. I used to work for an industrial electronics manufacturer and a number of project meetings I attended had some interesting discussions about freight and packaging. Those who attend meetings regularly will understand how a discussion about freight could possibly seem interesting. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I'm glad you raised that point, Aaron. First, Pentax DO send shipments by airfreight (according to you), so it shows that the price of airfreight makes it an economic proposition at times, although obviously one would expect seafreight to be cheaper. Second, I DO happen to believe that Pentax should use airfreight more often. In the past year, a great deal of criticism has been directed at Pentax for not having product in the stores. How many times do you suppose that Pentax lost a sale because a camera was on the high seas when, for only $2.00 more, it could have been in the store? But as for calling people stupid, I reserve that for people who uncritically accept figures for shipping that are a thousand times over-stated, whilst at the same time claiming to know something about shipping methods and logistics. Ring any bells? John On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:19:11 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:47 PM, John Forbes wrote: You're too stupid to realise I've disproved every one. Except for, um, the fact that Pentax actually DO send the large shipments by sea and the small shipments by air. No insults will change the reality of the situation. We get it, John -- he quoted a radically wrong number for the costs. That does not make any of the rest of this nonsense true. But perhaps you can call up Pentax and tell them that they're stupid and don't know anything about logistics -- they may thank you with a free camera or something. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:07:33 +0100, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 10, 2006, at 4:40 AM, Adam Maas wrote: So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs Most consumer goods travel by sea, unless they need to get there yesterday. Retailers apply far too much price-pressure to allow air freight unless there's no alternative. Depends what sort of goods you are talking about. If the product is small, light, of high value, and out of stock, then there are very good reasons for using airfreight. John I used to work for an industrial electronics manufacturer and a number of project meetings I attended had some interesting discussions about freight and packaging. Those who attend meetings regularly will understand how a discussion about freight could possibly seem interesting. - Dave -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 10, 2006, at 3:30 AM, John Forbes wrote: Second, I DO happen to believe that Pentax should use airfreight more often. In the past year, a great deal of criticism has been directed at Pentax for not having product in the stores. How many times do you suppose that Pentax lost a sale because a camera was on the high seas when, for only $2.00 more, it could have been in the store? Actually, this is clearly a store stock issue and not a Pentax issue -- they use the sea for the initial gigantic orders and not for subsequent follow-up orders. Unless there has been an issue at the launch of a camera with availability, which I haven't heard about, this is merely a problem with getting stores to bring in the products, nothing more. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Actually, this is clearly a store stock issue and not a Pentax issue -- they use the sea for the initial gigantic orders and not for subsequent follow-up orders. Unless there has been an issue at the launch of a camera with availability, which I haven't heard about, this is merely a problem with getting stores to bring in the products, nothing more. It may also be a distributor issue. While my local boys don't keep much in stock that is out of the ordinary, Pentax Canada has generally been able to supply my slightly esoteric needs quite quickly. My silver 31 was a few days, silver 77 within a week, the FA50/1.4 was a few days, the 10-17 took 3 or 4 days, and the 14 only took a few days as well.. The FA200/4 Macro took a couple of weeks, and the A15/3.5 was a couple of months, but I was warned in advance that these items were not going to be quick. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Every once in a while a container breaks loose from one of those big container ships. (Sometimes a whole ship goes down), then Nike Athletic Shoes wash up on beaches all over the Pacific. Hummm. (Yes this is silly, but now so is the rest of this discussion). Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 10, 2006, at 3:30 AM, John Forbes wrote: Second, I DO happen to believe that Pentax should use airfreight more often. In the past year, a great deal of criticism has been directed at Pentax for not having product in the stores. How many times do you suppose that Pentax lost a sale because a camera was on the high seas when, for only $2.00 more, it could have been in the store? Actually, this is clearly a store stock issue and not a Pentax issue -- they use the sea for the initial gigantic orders and not for subsequent follow-up orders. Unless there has been an issue at the launch of a camera with availability, which I haven't heard about, this is merely a problem with getting stores to bring in the products, nothing more. -Aaron -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/10/2006 7:58:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Every once in a while a container breaks loose from one of those big container ships. (Sometimes a whole ship goes down), then Nike Athletic Shoes wash up on beaches all over the Pacific. Hummm. (Yes this is silly, but now so is the rest of this discussion). I, like about 100 others I am sure, am just waiting for this thread to die. But the image of Nikes being washed ashore into natives hands was a nice diversion. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Think of getting the latest Pentax DSLR the same way... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/10/2006 7:58:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Every once in a while a container breaks loose from one of those big container ships. (Sometimes a whole ship goes down), then Nike Athletic Shoes wash up on beaches all over the Pacific. Hummm. (Yes this is silly, but now so is the rest of this discussion). I, like about 100 others I am sure, am just waiting for this thread to die. But the image of Nikes being washed ashore into natives hands was a nice diversion. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
A client of ours flew out a new cutting head for their dredge. Approx weight 15 tonnes. I hope to God it didn't cost them $33 million to get it here. Dave On 7/9/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don David Savage wrote: A client of ours flew out a new cutting head for their dredge. Approx weight 15 tonnes. I hope to God it didn't cost them $33 million to get it here. Dave On 7/9/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: New K bodies listed on B
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/09 Sun AM 10:46:01 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. Normally, the price goes down when one purchases more. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
We import fresh fruit and flowers from South America and the Hawaiian Islands to the US using air freight, it's important that these get here while still fresh, I'm sure that a Canada does the same. If it cost $1000/lb no one could afford to buy a dozen roses or even a mango. So lets think about this. How much does it cost to buy two dozen roses, weight about three pounds, airfreighted from Argentina, (or maybe Chile)? Amazon has them listed at about $30.00 US. That doesn't include the $10.00 delivery price in the US. Flowers are mostly water so by extension it costs less than $15.00 a pound for roses delivered by airfreight to the US. Assuming that the grower, and shipper, (not the carrier, it the shipping business they can be and often are different organizations or persons), and retailer, make a reasonable return on investment, (between 3 and 8%), then we can see that the actual cost of air freight per pound is probably less than $7.00 per pound for bulk items probably a lot less. Still expensive as shipping goes, but no where near $1000/lb. That's what it costs to put something into orbit, (if you're using something other than the STS that is). Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs The numbers I was referencing were old (I cribbed them from an early 90's text on cheap access to space), and it's quite possible that the prices have come down by an order of magnitude, but not two. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I just got a quick quote from Fed/Ex to ship a 1000 pound pallet from Tokyo Japan to the Beacon Hill Library in Seattle Washington. They want US$15,516.38 for the pleasure. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
And you would actually use FED/Ex? William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I just got a quick quote from Fed/Ex to ship a 1000 pound pallet from Tokyo Japan to the Beacon Hill Library in Seattle Washington. They want US$15,516.38 for the pleasure. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:46:01 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Francis wrote: On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Possible, I don't have the reference I was using handy. Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. Of course not, they're barely going 3000 miles and typically far less, instead of 2-3x times that, with much more cargo per lb of fuel since they are using aircraft with intercontinental range, allowing much less than max fuel loads at Maximum Takeoff Weight. I'd be shocked if their cost was even $5/lb for short ranges (Note the same goes for air freight from South America, which, while higher cost than within the US proper, isn't going to approach the cost of flying Japan-US by even a close margin). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Cite all the figures you want, $1000 per pound is still way off the mark. The numbers I cited for transporting cars on pallets where from Detroit to Christ Church New Zealand. It was approximagely $25 per pound, two cars, 8000 pounds. Difficult loading and unloading constraints. Extra precautions and heavy insurance, since the cars were for a two million dollar commercial shoot. Nowhere, no how, does it cost $1000 per pound to move anything, save perhaps cocaine from Columbia. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Francis wrote: On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Possible, I don't have the reference I was using handy. Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. Of course not, they're barely going 3000 miles and typically far less, instead of 2-3x times that, with much more cargo per lb of fuel since they are using aircraft with intercontinental range, allowing much less than max fuel loads at Maximum Takeoff Weight. I'd be shocked if their cost was even $5/lb for short ranges (Note the same goes for air freight from South America, which, while higher cost than within the US proper, isn't going to approach the cost of flying Japan-US by even a close margin). -Adam -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Dig, dig, dig, dig :-) On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Going back to the original question, I can't imagine that Pentax has ever shipped 40 tons of anything, anywhere. I would guess their typical shipment to New York is a ton at most. Look at the numbers. They haven't sold 40 tons of cameras in the history of the company. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Okay, my last post was an exaggeration. But it takes Pentax a long time to sell 40 tons of cameras worldwide, let alone to one market. I would guess shipments to distributors average quite a bit less than one ton. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/9/2006 5:45:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don === Yeah, I run a small home-based business. While I do not ship overseas, it usually is cheaper to do anything when you have a larger quantity. The more the product, the cheaper, in other words. Businesses are given breaks that way, otherwise they couldn't stay in business. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs The numbers I was referencing were old (I cribbed them from an early 90's text on cheap access to space), and it's quite possible that the prices have come down by an order of magnitude, but not two. -Adam Ballocks! -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Pentax produces 120,000 or so DS's in 2005 according to numbers posted here earlier (Nikon and Canon do that in a month of course, per model). At a conservative estimate of 1kg/box (Since the camera is about 1lb, plus packaging, CD's, cables, batteries, etc). That's 120 tons of DS's a year, including packaging. Plus whatever number of PS's and the other DSLR's and lenses and other such sundries and the packaging of the PS jobs is maybe half the size of the DS's. And given market size, probably 1/3 of them came to to North America (As Europe and the US are similar sized markets and Asia is collectively around the same sized market). That's easily a few containerloads a year to Pentax US. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: Okay, my last post was an exaggeration. But it takes Pentax a long time to sell 40 tons of cameras worldwide, let alone to one market. I would guess shipments to distributors average quite a bit less than one ton. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam Maas wrote: Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). My little sub-$200 ipod came via Fedex right from China- overnight. -Ryan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? You, the immortal genius who claims that trans-Pacific airfreight costs $1,000 per pound when it actually costs just over $1.00? The supreme Economist who claims that things go up in price the more you buy? And who hasn't worked out that if it costs more per unit to buy two of something than one of something, then people will buy one, twice? You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:18:10 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John Even with your numbers, you argument about how their shipped is wrong. -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? You, the immortal genius who claims that trans-Pacific airfreight costs $1,000 per pound when it actually costs just over $1.00? Actually, the best numbers for large quantities and masses that have been quoted here was $25/lb (Paul's two cars), and a much smaller shipment was $15/lb (William's 1000lb pallet). At least I'm willing to admit my numbers were wrong. Yours are only right for very small quantities (the size of which that can fit in passenger aircraft, where much of the cost is subsidized by paying passengers, and the aircraft are significantly more efficient (See previously posted numbers on 747-400ER vs 747-400ER freighter range, taken from Boeing's site this morning). The supreme Economist who claims that things go up in price the more you buy? And who hasn't worked out that if it costs more per unit to buy two of something than one of something, then people will buy one, twice? Somebody doesn't understand that for very large quantities, some shipping methods are simply not economical due to lake of ability to scale. Everything has a limit to which you can scale it, above which the costs go up because you start losing efficiency or simply run out of capacity (for which you aren't the sole customer). Air Freight doesn't scale particularly well beyond a certain point. Which is why most things are still shipped by sea and rail for long distances. Also, economies of scale only apply for mass produced iems when you aren't exceeding production capacity. Call caterham and order 1000 cars and see how much more they cost per unit a single car (Caterham hand builds sportscars) You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John I'd rather be a moron than someone who's ignorant of logistics, economies of scale and basic math. -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:18:10 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Ryan Brooks wrote: Adam Maas wrote: Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). My little sub-$200 ipod came via Fedex right from China- overnight. -Ryan Not surprised, Apple's got huge margins and production capacity issues. They'd rather eat some profit on shipping than give up marketshare on the iPod. And you can get a large number of iPod's on even a standard air freight container for an airliner (Notice how small Apple's packaging is getting lately? Shipping costs are likely one reason for that) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Yikes! Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear -- I wasn't defending the numbers, which I know nothing about. I was trying to clear up the fact that Pentax DOES ship by sea for large orders and by air for small ones. Regardless of what one thinks of common sense or basic economics, that is actually what they do. The first batch of K100D and K110D bodies destined for North America are on a boat last I heard. My DS2, which was a very late production model, shipped by air directly from the Philippine warehouse (by Purolator, if I recall correctly) and took only a couple of days to get to me. We've seen a clear demonstration already with the real-world numbers from Paul and Bill of how bigger shipments actually do get more expensive by air. The real world is under no obligation to conform to common sense, and frequently doesn't. And how can I be digging if this is only my second post on the subject? ;) IN SUMMARY: Pentax ship large orders by sea and small orders by air. They're either doing it in the most economical way, or total idiots. Arguing that they don't do this is akin to arguing that they don't sell cameras. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
when you enter a crowded room for the first time do you make a habit of lecturing the people already in there? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Strain Sent: 09 July 2006 22:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Bob, He's got a point. For all my participation in it, this was one of the sillier threads in recent history. -Adam Bob W wrote: when you enter a crowded room for the first time do you make a habit of lecturing the people already in there? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Strain Sent: 09 July 2006 22:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John Even with your numbers, you argument about how their shipped is wrong. Really? You have been consistently wrong and irrational throughout this discussion. You are utterly without credibility. Nothing you say makes sense or can be believed. I don't believe your figures about passenger versus freight payloads either. They just don't make sense. Anyway I am reminded of the saying that arguing with fools just makes one look foolish, so I will desist. Goodnight, and pray for a gift from the brain fairy. John -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Yep, the $1000/lb number is wrong (unless you are talking a Super Guppy or AN-224, which is where I expect my source got it, unfortunately they didn't divulge the math behiond the umber, and I took it on face value, mistakenly). It doesn't change the basic equations of air freight vs sea freight. The real world is typically far more complicated than common sense allows for. -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: Yikes! Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear -- I wasn't defending the numbers, which I know nothing about. I was trying to clear up the fact that Pentax DOES ship by sea for large orders and by air for small ones. Regardless of what one thinks of common sense or basic economics, that is actually what they do. The first batch of K100D and K110D bodies destined for North America are on a boat last I heard. My DS2, which was a very late production model, shipped by air directly from the Philippine warehouse (by Purolator, if I recall correctly) and took only a couple of days to get to me. We've seen a clear demonstration already with the real-world numbers from Paul and Bill of how bigger shipments actually do get more expensive by air. The real world is under no obligation to conform to common sense, and frequently doesn't. And how can I be digging if this is only my second post on the subject? ;) IN SUMMARY: Pentax ship large orders by sea and small orders by air. They're either doing it in the most economical way, or total idiots. Arguing that they don't do this is akin to arguing that they don't sell cameras. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On 9/7/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed: Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Adam, you're beyond redemption there lad. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On 9/7/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? Mark! PS -- ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not even that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this one). This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with commercial satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push them into niches. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via air. I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity issues) Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a solid guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's certainly faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have yet to argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary since they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's probably possible to ship significantly more Pentax cameras via air freight and stay in the area of reasonable cost. However you should note that the Binoculars appear to be targeted towards individual stores or mail order firms rather than a single national distributor (a la Pentax US) based on quantities that shipping is quoted for. I doubt that Pentax ships cameras in qunatities of 1000 to Pentax US, far more likely to ship 10,. Their quotes for quantities of Binoculars suitable for a national distributor are all quoted with sea freight. I wonder why that is? You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Great lens, I've got the 50/1.4 Super Takumar as well. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL Worked really nicely on my D when I had it. I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar I like digital for colour work, but prefer film for BW (which is a significant portion of my work). I soup my own BW, but use a lab for the rare time I shoot colour film (I also shoot with Nikons, and my current digi is a D50). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
So what? It's still bloody rude to walk in and SHOUT at everybody. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: 09 July 2006 22:36 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Bob, He's got a point. For all my participation in it, this was one of the sillier threads in recent history. -Adam Bob W wrote: when you enter a crowded room for the first time do you make a habit of lecturing the people already in there? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Strain Sent: 09 July 2006 22:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
You have to remember, my numbers were for prototype cars that had to be handled with extreme care. And they were received at an airport that wasn't well equipped for those kind of shipments. It's an extreme case, and I doubt that it ever gets more costly than that. (Chrysler seemed to think they were outrageously overcharged:-). Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not even that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this one). This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with commercial satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push them into niches. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via air. I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity issues) Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air- freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a solid guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's certainly faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have yet to argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary since they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's probably possible to ship significantly more Pentax cameras via air freight and stay in the area of reasonable cost. However you should note that the Binoculars appear to be targeted towards individual
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/9/2006 3:14:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what? It's still bloody rude to walk in and SHOUT at everybody. -- Cheers, Bob == Yes. It's always wise when approaching a new group to go slowly and absorb the atmosphere. Figure out the personalities, the group dynamics, the topics covered, etc. Inch one's way in slowly into the group. That's the way it works in real life and that's the way it works on the Net. On mailing lists and in newsgroups, lurk a bit first. Step lightly, don't try to anger people. That's for later. :-) When someone doesn't do that I really have to question their IQ. Marnie -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Fair cop! John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:38:28 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/7/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? Mark! PS -- ;-) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
Is Kodak Universal M/Q developer still out there in single use packets? --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Great lens, I've got the 50/1.4 Super Takumar as well. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL Worked really nicely on my D when I had it. I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar I like digital for colour work, but prefer film for BW (which is a significant portion of my work). I soup my own BW, but use a lab for the rare time I shoot colour film (I also shoot with Nikons, and my current digi is a D50). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:03:22 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not even that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this one). You can't compare cars with cameras. See Paul's post. This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with commercial satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push them into niches. Now you are comparing the cost of launching a space rocket with the cost of sending a Jumbo across the Pacific. Moron was too mild a word. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via air. I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity issues) So you just send two packages instead of one. How many times do I have to drop that little hint, oh Maestro of Logistics? Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a solid guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's certainly faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have yet to argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary since they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's probably possible to ship significantly more Pentax cameras via air freight and stay in the area of reasonable cost. However you should note that the Binoculars appear to be targeted towards individual stores or mail order firms rather than a single national distributor (a la
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film Those were the days, I don't much miss them... If most of your lenses are Super Takumars, (Not SMC Taks, which meter open aperture on the F), you won't lose much using them on the DL. Auto diaphragm will be a thing of the past, but that would be true on any K mount body. Stop down metering works well enough and you'll get the advantage of aperture preferred stop down automated metering so you gain something there, (in addition to the convenience of digital). Any third party lens, w/o a Auto/Manual switch will only expose wide open, which makes them a bit more problematic. Still you could do worse for a kit. As I said in an earlier post, (anticipated by everyone else it seems), there are lots of experts and quite a few experts on this list. Questions or comments usually garner reasonable and often quite knowledgeable responses. Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
Nor do I. But I still have a Spotmatic and a Spotmatic F. I once had half a dozen, including a Spotmatic Motor Drive. That one went to a collector in Japan. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:59 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film Those were the days, I don't much miss them... If most of your lenses are Super Takumars, (Not SMC Taks, which meter open aperture on the F), you won't lose much using them on the DL. Auto diaphragm will be a thing of the past, but that would be true on any K mount body. Stop down metering works well enough and you'll get the advantage of aperture preferred stop down automated metering so you gain something there, (in addition to the convenience of digital). Any third party lens, w/o a Auto/Manual switch will only expose wide open, which makes them a bit more problematic. Still you could do worse for a kit. As I said in an earlier post, (anticipated by everyone else it seems), there are lots of experts and quite a few experts on this list. Questions or comments usually garner reasonable and often quite knowledgeable responses. Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
This is an un-moderated list and as such threads often devolve to off topic screeds. If you have questions just ask. Someone here probably knows the answer. If you have an on topic observation, make it, you'll start a discussion. Otherwise there will be a lot of noise on the channel until someone brings up a topic you're interested in. It may as well be you who starts the thread. By the way, welcome to the madness. Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B And you would actually use FED/Ex? It happened to be a bookmark. Air freight is air freight, it's not gonna matter much whose name is painted on the airplane. Besides. the thread had pretty much devolved into crap anyway. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
No idea, I'm a Rodinal guy. But Kodak chems are mostly still available, it's the BW paper that's history. -Adam Joe Strain wrote: Is Kodak Universal M/Q developer still out there in single use packets? --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Great lens, I've got the 50/1.4 Super Takumar as well. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL Worked really nicely on my D when I had it. I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar I like digital for colour work, but prefer film for BW (which is a significant portion of my work). I soup my own BW, but use a lab for the rare time I shoot colour film (I also shoot with Nikons, and my current digi is a D50). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
OK, I'll go with William's numbers instead, at least for stuff that fits in a 747-400 freighter. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: You have to remember, my numbers were for prototype cars that had to be handled with extreme care. And they were received at an airport that wasn't well equipped for those kind of shipments. It's an extreme case, and I doubt that it ever gets more costly than that. (Chrysler seemed to think they were outrageously overcharged:-). Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not even that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this one). This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with commercial satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push them into niches. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via air. I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity issues) Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air- freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a solid guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's certainly faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have yet to argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary since they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's probably possible to ship
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Too true... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B And you would actually use FED/Ex? It happened to be a bookmark. Air freight is air freight, it's not gonna matter much whose name is painted on the airplane. Besides. the thread had pretty much devolved into crap anyway. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:47 PM, John Forbes wrote: You're too stupid to realise I've disproved every one. Except for, um, the fact that Pentax actually DO send the large shipments by sea and the small shipments by air. No insults will change the reality of the situation. We get it, John -- he quoted a radically wrong number for the costs. That does not make any of the rest of this nonsense true. But perhaps you can call up Pentax and tell them that they're stupid and don't know anything about logistics -- they may thank you with a free camera or something. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
$1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:51:09 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: New K bodies listed on B
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/03 Mon AM 08:00:32 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don Maybe it's a hazard charge for going over all those tectonic plate joints? Or the shippers know that the market will stand it? mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA ? Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Note I said large quantities. Air freight operations typically use the small packages to make up the rest of the load, very large shipments pay almost the entire fuel cost. -Adam Don Williams wrote: I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/03 Mon PM 02:55:53 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Note I said large quantities. Air freight operations typically use the small packages to make up the rest of the load, very large shipments pay almost the entire fuel cost. -Adam I still think you are two orders of magnitude out. $1000/lb? It would be cheaper to buy seats on a passenger plane. M, 747s full of limited lenses. Don Williams wrote: I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Don Williams wrote: I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don There's something special about the pacific that you do know...:-) The date line. If the cost is similar, they can ship across the continent and save a day. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I have a friend who is the radio officer on a container ship, it is 5 weeks for him to go from Oakland, CA to the Orient and return. So ~2.5 weeks from loading to unloading stateside, and who knows how much longer to get into the stores. I imagine other ports have similar shipping times. jm - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/03 Mon PM 02:55:53 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Note I said large quantities. Air freight operations typically use the small packages to make up the rest of the load, very large shipments pay almost the entire fuel cost. -Adam I still think you are two orders of magnitude out. $1000/lb? It would be cheaper to buy seats on a passenger plane. M, 747s full of limited lenses. Don Williams wrote: I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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
RE: New K bodies listed on B
Great Circles. They're the answer. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Williams Sent: 03 July 2006 09:01 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA - Finland - +358400706616 -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
If new cameras are shipping to the USA for the Xmas season, they are surely produced and shipped by now. Shipped containers by February from the orient is the general rule for the US Toy industry. Somebody said $1,000 per pound airfreight was off by at least 2 orders of magnitude and I agree. That price would be $160,000 per a passenger ticket for human transport...and I guarantee they are not giving passengers a cheaper fare than freight. Regards, Bob S. On 7/3/06, John Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a friend who is the radio officer on a container ship, it is 5 weeks for him to go from Oakland, CA to the Orient and return. So ~2.5 weeks from loading to unloading stateside, and who knows how much longer to get into the stores. I imagine other ports have similar shipping times. jm - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/03 Mon PM 02:55:53 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Note I said large quantities. Air freight operations typically use the small packages to make up the rest of the load, very large shipments pay almost the entire fuel cost. -Adam I still think you are two orders of magnitude out. $1000/lb? It would be cheaper to buy seats on a passenger plane. M, 747s full of limited lenses. Don Williams wrote: I got a package from Hong Kong a week ago. It weighed about half a kilogram -- cost $7.50. It didn't come across the Pacific but over the top of the world. Maybe there's something special about the Pacific I don't know? Don mike wilson wrote: From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/02 Sun PM 11:51:09 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam No wonder those little (ahem) babies are so costly. Got to be about $5000 just to get a 1Ds across the Pacific. Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the containerload on ships. Considering the cost of air freight across the Pacific is on the order of $1000/lb for large quantities, Air freight is certainly not viable for anything cheaper than a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: I think Shel was speaking metaphorically. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. Do cameras move on ships these days? I would think that with the high value and the speed of the market it would make air cargo more likely. Powell -- 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
RE: New K bodies listed on B
Oh. Yes, there have been several fraudulent Chinese auctions for the K100D on eBay. There's one on eBay UK right now. Auction for a K100D, shows a picture of a Canon. But I really liked the first one of these. It has an utterly irrelevant fishing-theme background. That seller (crook would be a better term) appeared to have made up all his own feedback, but did a lazy job. It wasn't hard to see through. I'll bet the one on eBay UK is the same crook. Well I did say suspiciously, seller assures me that they have them, however I don't even think they're in production.or are they? John John Whittingham Technician you can't be optimistic with a misty optic -- Original Message --- From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:40:27 -0600 Subject: RE: New K bodies listed on B It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. - Oh. Yes, there have been several fraudulent Chinese auctions for the K100D on eBay. There's one on eBay UK right now. Auction for a K100D, shows a picture of a Canon. But I really liked the first one of these. It has an utterly irrelevant fishing-theme background. That seller (crook would be a better term) appeared to have made up all his own feedback, but did a lazy job. It wasn't hard to see through. I'll bet the one on eBay UK is the same crook. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
The very first message in this thread, which was often quoted in responses and commented upon, said that BH expects to be selling these cameras starting in July, which is a bit more than a week away. That would suggest that the cameras are not only in production, but possibly even in transit to the US. Shel [Original Message] From: John Whittingham Well I did say suspiciously, seller assures me that they have them, however I don't even think they're in production.or are they? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
Point taken, that is interesting. John John Whittingham Technician you can't be optimistic with a misty optic -- Original Message --- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:18:16 -0700 Subject: RE: New K bodies listed on B The very first message in this thread, which was often quoted in responses and commented upon, said that BH expects to be selling these cameras starting in July, which is a bit more than a week away. That would suggest that the cameras are not only in production, but possibly even in transit to the US. Shel [Original Message] From: John Whittingham Well I did say suspiciously, seller assures me that they have them, however I don't even think they're in production.or are they? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
Well I did say suspiciously, seller assures me that they have them, however I don't even think they're in production.or are they? John - I am sure they are being produced. But they are not yet released for sale. BH is listing them, as Shel pointed out. That means they should be available soon. Some may already be on ships. But the Chinese auctions are fraudulent. They will first be released in either Ulan Bator or Prague. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Which site is that John? I'm not going to put it in print on this list. - Why not? Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter Sent: 24 June 2006 18:38 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Which site is that John? I'm not going to put it in print on this list. - Why not? Joe -- 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
RE: New K bodies listed on B
It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. That'd be the one. John John Whittingham Technician you can't be optimistic with a misty optic -- Original Message --- From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:46:35 +0100 Subject: RE: New K bodies listed on B It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter Sent: 24 June 2006 18:38 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B Which site is that John? I'm not going to put it in print on this list. - Why not? Joe -- 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 --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. - Oh. Yes, there have been several fraudulent Chinese auctions for the K100D on eBay. There's one on eBay UK right now. Auction for a K100D, shows a picture of a Canon. But I really liked the first one of these. It has an utterly irrelevant fishing-theme background. That seller (crook would be a better term) appeared to have made up all his own feedback, but did a lazy job. It wasn't hard to see through. I'll bet the one on eBay UK is the same crook. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On 24/6/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: It's the site that dare not speak its name. Starts with e and ends with ay. I thought John was referring to a UK retailer web site, I didn't realise he meant eekBay. Understood now. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
