The decision as to whether to add a $10.00 part to a $1500 retail camera is always the same, does it add value to the product to the customer? I honestly believe that would have added tremendous value to a Lot of their customers (why buy a pentax DSLR if it wasn't already for owning a lot of their lenses?).
It seems to me the decision to not add the $10 part was to sell new lenses, not save the $10 on the part. Hell they were able to provide that part on many of their very inexpensive film cameras and I doubt it even costs $10. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 15 Sep 2004 at 19:24, Keith Whaley wrote: > >> Ha, ha... I knew you'd say that... >> No disrespect meant, Rob. > >You have a background in engineering, can you seriously imagine a >reason why it >wouldn't have been practical or economical to implement given it's inclusion on >most all previous K mount bodies? Yes: The *vastly* lower profit margins on digital SLR's. Even if it only cost $10.00 to implement, that would make it too expensive for the ist-Ds. I expect it was left off the original ist-D partly for that reason, partly to maintain consistent lens mounts on the digital bodies and partly to SELL NEW LENSES. They are making little or no profit on the digital bodies. (I suspect Pentax lost money on the original ist-D, given the R&D costs and its selling price.)
