Wrong- what you guys are saying only makes sense IF THE $5 PART IMPLEMATION ISNT NEEDED or no valuable function is lost by removing it, but in this case the super cheapo cost reduction is costing a HUGE PRICE in that every K/M lens, PENTAX BRAND K MOUNT LENSES ! some of them more valuable than the whole istD DSLR in its entirety, becomes seriously degraded from a functional standpoint without it. You don't save $5 on a body and in the process waste thousands of dollars of valuable lenses.. That's fundemental economics...
I think I have just struck GOLD on this one! The cost reduction of the istD has to be measured against the COST of the lenses it does or doesn't support. You cant say that $5 savings in the body is worth losing thousands in the great lenses....SLR systems are systems. That is you have to make SYSTEM decisions on features in bodies, not try to evalute the body costs alone in making the feature body set. You cant just remove cheap things out of the cameras available that don't end upsetting the whole camera SYSTEM economy. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To put a $5 part into the design without damn good reason from >Marketing, Engineering and Support requires something like an act of >god in the face of ultimate catastrophe. That is the reality of >manufacturing decisions when it comes to mass produced devices today. As I have already made clear, $5.00 is at least an order of magnitude *greater* than the amounts on which such decisions routinely hinge. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
