On 7/25/05 9:49 AM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Poor implementation I guess It appears so. I knew for the fact that Pentax solved the problem when Kyocera could not, because a well-known Pentax person disclosed that Kyocera approached Pentax for help. This was just before Kyocera went ahead releasing the product. He did not elaborate what was discussed with Kyocera or what had transpired after the meeting, but it was obvious that Pentax respectfully declined the help, because Kyocera went ahead marketing their cameras right after that. I do not remember how high an ISO Kyocera and Pentax went up but I thought Kyocera only went up to ISO400 (barely) and still had some trouble there while Pentax went up to at least ISO800 (maybe more) with practically no noise. My speculation was that Kyocera/Contax might have taken a risk, thinking that the first in the market, FF and Contax brand should overcome the initial difficulty. IIRC, the price of the body at the time was approaching $10K and it was surprising that they actually sold few of those, although it was the literal fire sale toward the end of its life. What a way to end the brave challenge! Their camera was so big and heavy while MZD was very compact and "working". But in hindsight, the fact that Kyocera/Contax had to fold up the digicam business altogether (film camera too?, I am not sure) indicated that they really did not have the technical ability and prowess to survive the cut-throat competition and sustain the business. Interesting case. Cheers, Ken
