See interspersed comments below Pål wrote:---------- >> I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as >> expensive as it initially was. >> Too expensive. >> The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices >> increase.
> Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same > product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much > lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product > get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 > years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a "low" used priced > compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of > it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at > significant savings. > > Pål Yes this is true. But Pentax did not decide to keep LX sales going over a longer time by releasing upgrades of the LX or a successor model to the LX. OTOH they did this with the 67 system by introducing the 67II. My point is that (sure I am only guessing here) that an "AF" LX with modern electronics would be too expensive to find enough customers. This would be, although such a camera would probably not be much more expensive than the old LX would cost today (basically the mechanics are the more expensive parts). Camera reviewers have even complained about the MZ-S being too expensive though it is actually moderately priced for what it is. This is basically because you can buy cheaper, but less well-made bodies that are laden with more features. Mike wrote: ---------------- >> If there was a modern Af camera that was built >> according to the same quality level as the LX and that >> was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the >> 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was >> the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to >> buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap >> ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has >> already given the answer. >> > >Alexander, > I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not > been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and > ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably > than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean > that the market wouldn't support an "AF LX" if one were available. After > all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Yes, but I assume Pentax made their choice not releasing a LX successor based on marketing research. And it's market is not comparable to Nikon's. Nikon's present share on the 35mm SLR world market is about 35% (if I am not wrong) while that of Pentax is only 10%. So there are much more potiential customers who will likely upgrade to a F5-like camera (only few beginners will start with a F5). When the LX was introduced Pentax' market share was about 20%. > Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so > highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera > unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. > > This perfectly shows how much more difficult it is to sell high end gear. Regardles how such a hypothetical "AF-LX" will look like, they will convice only a fraction of Pentax useres to buy one. (BTW I would like to see a "AF"-LX) Enjoy, Alexander > Those are: > > 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing > 2. Quiet operation > 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) > 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses > 5. Aperture-priority AE > 6. AE lock > 7. Non-resetting ISO > 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters > 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for > decent portability > 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not > too many extra controls and features confusing everything. > > I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, > and I'd probably be using > an MZ-S if it had #1. > > The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the "top > ten" features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a > great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it > couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't "dictate" the > way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any > particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and > it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. > > For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync > speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's > very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand > excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low > vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for > someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory. > > Slide photographers may not give a hoot for a 100% viewfinder; others would > be very concerned with motor drive capability; landscape photographers may > well not care about quiet operation; and the list goes on and on. > > What Abe Lincoln said really holds true here. "You can satisfy some of the > people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you > can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." > > No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who > would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that > it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must > be a pretty thankless task. > > --Mike __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
