Tom wrote:
> I still suspect the MZ-S will suffer the same fate as the PZ-1p.
Possibly but I suspect its designed to have that fate. The Z-1p was crammed with
features, used some cheap materials and agressively priced (from day one; dumped from
day two). So basically they were dependent on volume to make money. The MZ-S is not
designed for high volume but is a niche product. If the MZ-S sell as much as the Z-1p
it will be considered a sucess; not at least because the slr market continue to
shrink. This means that all upper end cameras are niche models from now on. Minolta
make 8000/month of the Dynaxx7 and loose money on each one and is a far cry from
prospected sales. Pentax make 3000/month of the MZ-S initially - this number is
expected to be significantly reduced over time. They can probably still make money on
it. In spite that the MZ-S costed 20 million USD to develop (I believe this number
include its digital sibling), I suspect that the MZ-S was significantly cheaper to
develop than the Z-1p. Lets face it; theres hardly much "new" in the MZ-S; mostly
improvement of existing technology. The Z-1p was more of a major leap for Pentax.
>I still
> think they should not have reduced any specs from the PZ-1p, only made
> improvements or additions.
I'm certain the MZ-S is not meant as top of the line. Telling is that it was released
with a mid level zoom and a mid level flash indicating to me that its a mid level
camera. The boosted built quality and price indicates that Pentax move upmarket also
indicated by the Limited lenses.
>
> Even then if Pentax produced the ultimate camera, I think name recognition,
> advertising, and market dominance counts for everything. Pentax will never
> dominate or even be 2nd place in the high 35mm market.
I don't think they intend to but never say never. They were once number one.
P�l
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
