The main reason that they were so cheap is that those cameras did not
have microprocessors, A/D channels, firmware, lcds, ccds, etc. And they
did not have to deal with auto focus, sophisticated program modes,
metering modes, etc. The cost in the new cameras is much greater
because it adds another dimension to an already very complicated
problem. That costs money not only in R&D, manufacturing, parts,
documentation, testing, etc.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
YES WE CAN- there is a long history
of these parts in bottom of the
line PENTAX cameras that sold for only $150
FOR THE WHOLE CAMERA....How much
do you think that parts maximum cost could
have been for that to be possible?
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rename request
In a high volume situation, I would agree with you since you can
amortize the cost of everything I mentioned over the run of the camera.
But these are not high volume cameras, esp not the *istD. Of course
both of us have no idea of what the actual cost is both from the
development side to the manufacturing side, so we are just speculating
anyways. We cannot make a blanket statement either way on whether or
not cost was an issue here.
rg
