Graywolf wrote:
BUT!
The top-end camera is what people compare to. It is the one that shows
your capability. If Nikon and Canon did not have that top-end camera
their low-end sales would be much curtailed. As are Pentax's.
Strangely car companies who have a winning race team sell more cars
than companies who do not, even though the race cars are nothing like
the ones you can buy. All along same same cameras.
Having the cheapest low-end camera does nothing for your image. Before
Canon decided to try and whoo the PJ market with giveaways, they were
considered a second rate manufacturer even Pentax was rated higher.
Unfortunately in sales figures image is everything.
I believe you are right. I nearly added a post saying essentially the
same thing when someone talked about how the "pro" models often aren't
very profitable. The point with these products is often not to make a
profit *as such*, I think.
However, I think what you are saying here may be used as an argument if
you want to convince someone to buy a Pentax (in reference to another
post.) As in "Canon is all image, you know, why not try a brand that's
more about good products."
- Toralf
