Well, I'm afraid there is probably a difference between what we "think"
the demographics are and what they are based on research. Our opinion
and reality do not always match. We frequently have pre-conceived
notions of what we think reality is based on our experience. But I
would bet Pentax discovered that many DSLR buyers did not fit the
profile you are describing, otherwise I dont believe they would have
made the choices they did.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
There is a major flaw in your argument in my opinion.
I don't think the demographics of DSLR buyers is newbies.
I would bet my money that the demographics of DSLR buyers
is mostly people who already owned film bodies and already have lenses
and are upgrading the body to digital. I don't have anything
to back this up it just a hunch, but most true newbies arent even into SLRS
today or even know what they are, most newbies have grown up on P&S
cameras.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
The point the Godfrey is trying to make is that Pentax Marketing has a
pot of features, each one with a target market segment and a
production/retail cost associated with it. They prioritize these
features according to their market research. If they want to hit a
certain price point, then they basically throw out the lower priority
items on that list. For whatever reason, probably because of certain
competitive features, the whole cam sensor thing got dropped. Probably
because not enough of their main market segment cared about this enough.
I.e. they are trying to aim the new DSLR's to a market segment that
does not fit your profile. Since they are trying to survive in a very
competitive and brutal market right now, its hard to second guess their
decisions based on our own little microscopic view of whats good for us.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I miscommunticated. I threw out a number.
This part is not $50 added cost to selling
price as you should know, even real cheapo
budget third party entire cameras have this
part. it's a pot and a spring and and a A/D
channel. You cant be serious if you think
in todays market that would cause a $50
price increase, it wouldn't and its probably
a $1 part nowadays. this is incredibly simple
cam sensor. its just like a sliding volume
control you would find on a $10 am radio.
Secondly EVEN IF it did add $50 to the cost
of the camera I wouldn't even think for a
second to pay that $50 because the value
it adds to the body would be way more than
$50 to me. BUT IT WOULDNT- NO WAY.
I CONTINUE TO RANT because you keep missing
my key point, if you don't have old lenses
than sure its irrelavant to you. You are not
a long time loyal pentax customer. You don't seem to
understand that these new lenses and bodies
don't have to abandon K/M- if they did in the
name of progress I think you would have a point
but there isnt anything preventing the continued
support K/M from a financial, product cost or technical standpoint
what so ever. WHAT NEW FEATURE is gained by this
abandonment? NONE. No new lens feature, no cost
savings... If the camera was actually $50 less for
you to buy because of this missing part AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS-
that's barely worth the loss of compatability
even if you don't have any K/M lenses because
it would give you the option of getting/using even borrowing them.
But if you do have any K/M lenses, especially
really good expensive ones, then the hypothetical
$50 savings in the body cost isnt a savings
at all it's a major liability because you may have
to replace them with new models because of lack
of the $1 pot.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
JCO,
You've articulated your position clearly and at length. However, it
isn't going to change anything, only Pentax can change what they
decide to do. $5 worth of parts in the camera translates to a $50
bill at retail price. Pentax doesn't feel it's warranted by the user
base buying these bodies, evidently. They've done a better job of
legacy lens support than anyone else, barring Nikon's support of AI-S
lenses in their top of the line cameras only, which I feel should be
lauded rather than disparaged; I certainly applaud the level of
support they have already offered since it is better than their
competitors.
Do you think you can relax and just accept the fact that this is how
it is? Write Pentax and explain your dissatisfaction. Others who feel
similarly can do the same thing. In the end it's up to Pentax to
decide how to work their business. They're the ones who know the
costs of producing the cameras, not us, but I wager that that $5 part
buys three or four more marketable features that are significant to
the people who might be interested in the cameras.
I'm satisfied with my Pentax equipment, with whatever warts it might
have, and have no great interest in buying many 30 year old lenses.
So it doesn't make sense for me to take them to task over something
that has no significant impact on my use of their products. I want to
see them upgrade their lens line and bodies to new standards, not the
old. That's a better strategic direction.
You obviously feel differently about it, but ranting to the PDML
about it is not going to change anything.
Godfrey
