Pentax certainly isn't going to go for the news photographer market. Nikon and Conon compeate in that market by providing free on-site service and feee loaners at major events. That is expensive, and the comsumer gets to pay for it when they buy Canon, or Nikon consumer grade cameras; so I would't want them to do that either.
But there are many other markets for a high end 35mm based digital digital. Event photogs could eat up eveything Pentax could produce for a while. Serious wedding photogs could make good use of such a camera. Unfortunately, without tilt&shift lenses they wouldn't break into much of the product photography market, but if they came out with a couple of T&S leneses they could make heavy inroads into that market. No, the MZ-D is not an unmarketable camera, except maybe for Pentax. Ciao, graywolf ----- Original Message ----- From: Pål Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:22 AM Subject: RE: New Pentax digital SLR Cesar wrote: >I don't see how the MZ-D is already obsolete. It is obsolete because the chip is far more expensive than those the competition, and Pentax for that matter, will use real soon. >I thought it was a question >of pricing themselves into a market they did not want to be. Or where the customers don't want to buy. Pentax did take preorder for the MZ-D and I believe, but not gotten it confirmed, that in my country they didn't receive a single order. At least, the Pentax distributor had no idea who was going to buy a 10 000USD digital Pentax. They only ones who can justify this cost are people who are producing lot of images. For 35mm photography these are the photo journalist. They have heavily invested in Nikon and Canon lenses and won't switch to Pentax just because it offers (for the time being) a few Mpix more. Theres no way Pentax can make a viable digital slr until it reaches prices the amateur can afford. These prices will be reached in a relative short while but not with that Philips chip. >There seems to >be no reason why they would not address a full '35mm-format' size CCD in a >camera. I think they *will* use a full frame chip but a cheaper one than the Philips. >Something I cannot understand is how a digital camera becomes 'obsolete.' >The fact that I have a 3.1 megapixel digital camera still makes it a digital >camera that produces good images (still meeting my original useage >criteria) six years from now. The fact that there may be 6, 7, or 10 >megapixel cameras out there does not make my digital obsolete - just not top >of the line in terms of size. But you can't sell a less than top of the line chipped camera at a top of the line price. Hence, it becomes obsolete. The Philips chip is getting too expensive for what it offers. BTW a Pentax rep told me that the Contax use a CMOS chip not from Philips (I haven't got this confirmed from other sources so apply with a usual grain of salt). The Pentax MZ-D with the Philips chip would have costed significantly more than the Contax. Pål Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
