On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I wasnt discussing price, but if you already
> have the lenses or want to buy high quality M42
> lenses, the higher cost of the body is offset
> in the system context because the lenses are
> much lower cost ( or no extra cost if you
> already have them ) than brand new or recent pentax or canon
> or nikon lenses in most cases.
>
> Yes, low production, high cost electronics items are "rare" but
> still do exist. None of my audio gear for example, is mass produced but
> I still got them. Look at full frame DSLRs or the new
> Leica digital RF. I would not expect a M42 DSLR to be as cheap
> as a K100D of course.
>
> jco
>
I really doubt adding another '0' to the price of a K100D would be
able to make it a cost-effective design. Even if everybody who wanted one
and was willing to pay for it (that'd be you and maybe 10 other people on
the planet), it'd probably have to cost $20K to make back the engineering
costs.
It's a similar thing to aircraft avionics. What amounts to
basically a well-built CB radio costs $2500 new. A similar model
costs $1000 for a used one that's 25 years old. The few companies who
produce these low-volume devices charge a lot more than what they would if
they were commodity. In some cases (like portable GPS's), for almost
identical hardware to a consumer-grade on that costs 1/10th the price.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
