They were cheap because the dollar was worth more, adjusted for
inflation the current film cameras cost less than the MX and ME when
they were introduced.
Gonz wrote:
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
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
