"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seth wrote:
>
>
> > As Pål is so fond of saying, this is utter bullshit. The cost
of
> > cameras was always primarily a function of materials used and
the
> > manufacturing process. That's why a Leica rangefinder will
always
> > have to cost more than latest plastic fantastic SLR. This is
> > inspite of the fact that all of R&D money that went into M6 was
> > spent years ago, while Canon has to come out with with a new
Rebel
> > evey couple of years.
>
>
> I wasn't talking about the cost of the camera but the cost of
developing it. R&D of the Leca M6 cost nothing compared to the
latest plastic fantastic Canon.
> Another issue is that when the electronic is already developed,
adding electronic features cost close to nothing since most is
already embedded on the microchip anyway. Maybe I haven't express
mysel clarly enough.
>
I would certainly agree with your second point above. For exampe,
after developing ZX-5, it was relatively simple to add a few
features such as electronic DOF preview. And presto, ZX-5n is born.
> > Pål's "proof" is just plain wrong. Many companies that went
bust
> > were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution.
Yashica
> > is a good example. Konica didn't go belly up only because it
could
> > rely on its other businesses. On top of that, many companies
> > disapeared long before electronic cameras became commonplace.
>
>
> Miranda, Petri, Topcon basically went out of business when camera
went computer controlled. The extra cost of developing AF took the
rest.
>
The last Miranda appeared in 1976. Petri went bust in 1977. Topcon
swan song was in 1979. This quiet some time before AF became
commonplace. That's also the period when all mechanical Pentax MX
was selling very well. Those companies got into trouble, mostly
because of marketing failure, long before electronic cameras became
standard. A better example might have been Chinon which hung on
into the 80's. But even Chinon had a huge marketing disadvantage.
The major manufacturers built extensive distribution networks that
gave them huge advantage when the inevitable consolidation came.
There may not be a Pentax today, if they had not taken over US
distribution from Honeywell in the 70's.
BTW, when refering to the demise of of Miranda/Petri/Topcon, I am
only considering cameras actually made by these companies. The
Petri name sputtered out for a few more years as re-badged Cosinas.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
