>Yeah, I don't think there is any profit to Pentax in producing a Baby D. >Not >really. No point in competing with C****, they wouldn't capture much of >the >potential 300D market. And they've already dropped the *istD to be more >competitively priced for a mid to upper end DSLR. More optios, sure. And >maybe a >second generation *istD... someday. Or a MF equivalent. Be nicer if they >did one or >both of those anyway.
There's a lot more customers for a $1000 DSLR than a $1500 (or so) one, judging from the flood of people buying Canon 300Ds. Personally, I might buy a $1000 Pentax DSLR to put my screw-mount lenses on (if it were slightly more capable than the canon 300D) If that's the *istD in a year, great, but I doubt that they can drop the price THAT much while the camera is still viable in the market. If they don't get another viable DSLR to market, well, maybe I should get that 300D after all. >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:31:19 -0500 >From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: New K Mount DSLR >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >On the top of the page is a drop-down >where you can get their "April Fools?" >explanation. But it was just too >close to what is practical to be a >really good joke. It might be doable. It MIGHT be doable, but probably not with any of the current APS-sized chips. DSLRing a film SLR seems to cost something like $750-1000. Sure, you could put a smaller, cheaper chip (something from a P&S, for example) in there, with minimal buffer, no screen, etc and possibly get a K-mount DSLR out for maybe $500. I'm not sure who'd want such a thing. Image quality would be low (P&S levels of noise, few megapixels), the crop factor would be even worse than the current 1.5x (since there ISN'T a 3MP-ish APS size sensor unless you could get the original Nikon D1/D1h chips really cheap somewhere), and the screen on the back is one of the major appeals of digital for most users. A $500 digital P&S would likely be a better camera. I know people seem to think that it just HAS to be possible to put out a cheap DSLR. Looking at the $1000 Nikon and Canon cameras, which are in many ways really cheap and cheesy, I don't think it is yet. The fact that P&S digitals and film SLRs have gotten really cheap doesn't seem to matter. The BATTERY ALONE on some of the high-end DSLRs is more expensive than a cheap SLR or DP&S. DJE
