Patents are often used for trade, as long as you contribute to the common patent pool you are allowed used some of the others. If you have an important patent in the competitors field you can get what you want from him. That is an important part of the technology and patent game, and that's why you cant predict a companys future products from their patents. I thought people on Wall St knew that .-)
Anyway. I bought the *istD with many of the same thoughts that you did, but I dont agree with you in that the content of the images depend on the technology. In my view the lack of content is just more evident when the technology is better. DagT > fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dato: 2005/09/22 to AM 01:33:05 CEST > til: <[email protected]> > emne: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > i bought the *istD knowing that at only 6MP, it could not possibly the > camera i would stay with, but it would be an adequate 2 year stepping stone > to the upgrade from it which i expected i could live with for a long time. > 6MP is a lot better than film bigots give it credit for, but until DSLRs hit > the 15MP range, there is still a lot to be gained by putting more quality > megapixels onto the sensor. in addition to megapixels, the *istD isn't > capable of taking some of the kinds of pictures i am trying to do now. back > in the manual focus days, it didn't matter whose brand of camera you used, > it was the photographers skill that made the only difference. well nowadays, > that's not true anymore. standards for acceptable content have gone way up > and skill alone might get some shots, but skill and good assistive > technology will get enough shots to be competitive. > > i expected that Pentax would announce a lower range body and then a higher > range body, just like they announced with film cameras. every other vendor > started down that path, some with formal announcements before they even had > a single body out. there is a good reason that everyone else did, because > that is how you cover your user base and make money. Cotty summed it up > best. there are some who need the high end camera and can justify it. its > job is to attract attention, satisfy the high end pros, and break even on > costs. the mid range body is where you sell a lot and make your most money, > because its profit margin is highest, to upgraders from your entry level and > catch the switchers from other brands. the entry level is where you sell a > lot but make very little money, just about everyone who buys is price > sensitive and new to your equipment. in fact, the entry level body might > even be a loss leader, because it generates lens sales. > > my pile of Pentax lenses are tools, but there are enough of them to be very > expensive tools. the lenses themselves are excellent because i have sold > the stuff that i didn't think was good enough, and are fully able to take > the kinds of pictures that i aim for. what's missing is a body that can > actually do it. Pentax has had the technology for a long time now and has > done nothing with it. piles of advanced patents don't do much good if they > never make it into products. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:40 AM > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > > Well, if the *istD dont satisfy your need, why did you buy it in the first > > place? > > > > Face it, you probably shouldn't have bought Pentax in the first place. It > > happens to many of us, like my experience with Bronica. > > > > If I were you I'd use the Pentax for the pictures I'd always used it for > > (it must have been useful for something) and continue doing so until it > > falls apart, and I'd bought something else to take the other pictures. > >
