FYI, The K1000 was selling for $150 brand new Well into the 1990's and its got hundreds Of itty bitty parts that need delcate assembly And It had ALL the parts for the aperture Cam sensor included at that very low selling price at that time. You are mistaken if you think the cost of the part Is prohibitive to making a profitable camera model with it Included. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:41 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey On Oct 21, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: >>> Are you suggesting that you are using all the features of each of >>> your >>> cameras? If not, please don't isolate the particular artifact in >>> your >>> (non) quest for a cheaper body. >>> >> Are you suggesting that every DSLR buyer has a raft of K/M lenses >> that >> they want to use? >> Or that K/M lenses can take advantage of every feature that a modeern >> camera offers? > > Not at all, William, not at all. I have K, M, A, F and FA lenses, so I > know 1st hand what's on and what's not. I am complaining about > isolating the linkage as a cost saving on the basis that Godders and > other will not use it. Why not victimise the pop-up flash, the > thinning > filter, the program modes, the grip mounts, the flash shoe, heck, even > the lens dismount button; how many people will only ever mount one > lens on their DSLR? I'd love for them to get rid of the program presets, the pop-up flash, and the grip mount. (They got rid of the grip mount on the low- end DS/DL/K100 series bodies, notice? as a cost savings measure. ... I've never missed it.) Also all the effects, white balance controls ... I only capture in RAW and could live without the LCD and JPEG engine as well. The flash shoe would be important if they eliminated the popup flash, but if they kept the pop-up, they could eliminate it for many people. They could likely market a fixed lens DSLR with a 17-70mm lens too but who cares? Despite what some have asserted, the cost of manufacture for a mechanical lens coupling is much higher than most of the above and it's an unnecessary appendix for ancient lenses that do not pose any profitable return, so it was one of the first things to go starting with the *ist film body. BTW ... Perhaps JCO's notion that a K1000 body was $35 worth of parts was correct in 1979. Adjusting for inflation, that means the cost of parts for that body today is likely about $350. But I wouldn't expect him to understand that. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
