Canon is the real problem here. They introduce upgrades too fast, but it makes the others either react or lose market share. So far, most are losing market share, including Pentax. Actually it is potential market share that Pentax is losing to Canon by not responding faster.
-- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 22, 2005, 6:16:06 PM, you wrote: pcn> The Pentax strategy is completely logical. If I was the pcn> Pentax marketing manager I wouldn't have introduced an *istD (S) pcn> upgrade this soon. I'd want to wait until a large percentage of pcn> the original buyers of both cameras would be ready for an pcn> upgrade. It wold be premature now. In 18 months, it will be a big pcn> seller. You don't want the upgrade to be old when the majority of pcn> your owners are ready to buy again. Would I have liked an upgrade pcn> right now? You bet you're sweet bippy. But like you, I'm a pcn> relatively heavy user and the exception rather than the rule. I'm pcn> not sure that the MF camera is a good idea. It may be. Time will pcn> tell. But in terms of good business decisions, it's too soon for pcn> an *istD upgrade. >> On 22 Apr 2005 at 19:32, Herb Chong wrote: >> >> > which is why ti think hey should have been working on an upgrade body over >> > the >> > *istD instead of a 645D. >> >> This is far too logical an approach Herb, you know that. >> >> >> Rob Studdert >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ >> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >>
