Mass wrote :"It was nothing more than the bog-standard Cosina SLR with yet another mount slapped on".
DUH. A M42 mount DSLR would be nothing more than a very cheap PK DSLR with a M42 mount slapped on and a simple M42 lens actuator plate instead of a lever to activate the lens pin. I never suggested M42 mount DSLR would be for people only using that mount, I for example, want one in addition to, not instead of, my PK DSLR. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:43 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Yep, and one based almost entirely on a camera they'd been building for decades. It was nothing more than the bog-standard Cosina SLR with yet another mount slapped on. Same basic body's been made in K, F, OM, FD, C/Y and possibly MD mounts. Essentially no development cost for a small profit. 95%+ of the market for M42 lenses today is users who have a non-Nikon DSLR and want some cheap and good primes. These users aren't going to buy a M42 specific DSLR since M42 isn't the only mount they're using. There's very few people who will buy a DSLR for one old mount, no matter how many lenses are available on the cheap. And of those few, most of them will want OM, C/Y or SR/MC/MD mount rather than M42 (especially since two of those mounts support M42 adaptors). -Adam On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, JC OConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hell cosina introduced a low production film M42 > camera at low cost WHEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THEM. > (MILLIONS OF WORKING SPOTMATICS ON THE MARKET AT THE TIME) there are > zero M42 DSLRs on the market now. > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:57 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > It might have helped if they made a few more of them and/or advertized > them a little more broadly. They made less than 15,000 units and sold > them, occasionally, through a couple of knowledgeable dealers only. No > economies of scale and no marketing means high prices... > > G > > On Nov 19, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> ... The RD-1 is so pricey because >> Epson had to amortize the cost of the electronics over relatively few >> units. >> >> -Adam >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:41 PM, P. J. Alling >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >>> You know, I'd still like an RD-1. It's just too expensive for what >>> it is... >>> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
