OK - that might indeed be the case.
Actually when I now try to think what actually was said at the time - and it
was a few years back - I do not remember anything concrete, only that the
quality of the Philips chip was not good and the rejection rate was very,
very high. But I may be wrong again.
The Contax brand is dying - film and digital - the last one to die will be
the 645 in December, according to PopPhoto.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
----- Original Message -----
From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
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
