> > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/10/31 Tue PM 10:59:05 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > Arrrrrggggghhh! > It's back. It's Halloween, and the thread from hell is back!!
It _is_ the day when dead things rise. The only question is if we are talking about the thread or the aperture sensor mechanism. JCO won't lie down, so it can't be him. 8-) > > On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: > > > Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and > > purchased it. > > It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. > > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > >> Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I > >> knew a > >> number of people in the automotive business many years back, and > >> they'd > >> watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of > >> more than a > >> million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys > >> discuss > >> costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about > >> spacing > >> bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four > >> instead of five > >> bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt > >> (which > >> seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units > >> needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt > >> during > >> manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. > >> > >> John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than > >> some may > >> realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the > >> cost of the > >> steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you > >> say. > >> Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may > >> be more > >> rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The > >> truth is, we > >> _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR > >> camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. > >> > >> I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is > >> just > >> blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some > >> abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, > >> including the > >> aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the > >> design has > >> been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion > >> of shake > >> reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the > >> true cost > >> of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the > >> peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, > >> those > >> numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. > >> > >> BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual > >> assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as > >> much of > >> that type of work as possible. > >> > >> Shel > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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 > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
