On 21 Feb 2002 at 23:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Are you being facetious? Last week > > you were busting on slow lenses. > > I don't understand the term "busting". If you mean knocking them, I > don't believe i did.
See Aaron's response. It seemed as though you were. > > > An innovator? They developed a plastic camera > > for a 50 y.o mount they copied. > > Yes, an innovator in terms of marketing, and carving out a niche for > themselves, and for having the vision to see that there was a demand > for the products. While everyone was running away from rangefinders, > CV embraced the concept and began developing a complete system that's > used and embraced by Leica owners as well as those wanting an > entry-level RF. You're saying it's an innovation to do market research, find a product gap and make something to exploit it? I think every marketing book ever written says something like that. Anyway, so what? Why are you so interested in CV's business model? We have no data on sales, profits or r+d costs, so it seems pointless to argue whether the Voights were a good move for Cosina. For all I know Cosina could be losing money hand over fist because the chairman is a Leicaphile. I think it's a good move for you and me that Cosina is putting out a Bessa R2, but I have no idea whether it's a good move for them, and it's certainly no basis to argue that Pentax should do something similar. > > > unlike the Leica rip-off that Voight puts out. > > I don't really see it as a rip off since there are no Leicas quite > like the CV offerings. Voight seems to me to be a Leica for people who can't afford Leicas. > > > The 645 33-55 is a STUPENDOUSLY bold move! > > I've not heard of that. In what way is it a "STUPENDOUSLY bold move?" It's an ultra wide angle (20-35) medFo zoom, something I wouldn't have even wished for last year, thinking it wasn't within the realm of engineering possibility. Basically, if you shoot P645 you peed your pants when you heard about this lens. > > > > It's been said that it would cost $1000.00 if Pentax were to > > > produce a contemporary lens like the 50mm/1.4 Super Tak, or > > > $1000.00 to produce a Spotmatic quality camera. I think that's a > > > gross, overinflated estimate. > > > > I'd like to see your analysis. > > I've no analysis, just like those who've said the cammeras and lenses > would be so expensive. I'm puttingh out an opinion, a though - it's > conjecture. I think Mike said there *was* an analysis, he just didn't offer to share it. I guess you're arguing that since CV can put out such nice lenses, that Pentax should be able to as well. Well, the limited are as nice, but they're pretty expensive. I suppose if the 43 were a f/1.4 like in the example above, the price would creep even closer to that $1000 figure. The 31 and 77 are already just about there. I have to admit I *am* curious as to how Cosina makes the lenses so inexpensively. Are they subsidized by other products? Maybe as a gigantic manufacturing firm they've realized some production efficiencies. Or maybe Pentax is just gouging us. ;) > > > > Are you saying Voights are as nice as Spots? > > No, not exactly, since they fill a different niche and are of a > different design. Some of the CV lenses are jewels - quite desireable > and well made. I'll agree about the lenses, though I thought the 1st two cameras were closer to MZ-M's than Spots. The new camera looks pretty neat. > What I'm saying is that here's a company that's > producing a good product, moving up the quality line, and looking > forward in ways that other companies are not. I'm wondering if pentax > couldn't do something similar - and maybe they have with the MZ-S. > But, what if they stripped away a lot of the features (as CV did with > their initial offering), and made a more basic camera with high build > quality and good design? Might they not be able to produce a quality > camera for less than the price of an MZ-S? One that newer, less > affluent people could more easily afford, and then move into the > Pentax fold? I'm not a production engineer, or a c/b analyst, but I doubt that shaving off a few of the electronic gizmos would really reduce the cost that much. What would you have them get rid of? It seems like a pretty simple camera to me, the only thing I'd really want to improve would be the finder and AF speed/accuracy. But then those would drive up the cost.... > > > I suppose they can make the lenses so cheap > > because what Cosina really specializes in is > > making all those cheap plastic cameras and > > lenses you hate. In fact, as I understand it, > > the first 2 Bessas were built on that universal > > crap camera frame. > > So, what you're saying is that if the company has the funds to do so, > then they can successfully produce and market unique, high-quality > items. If they're selling them for cheap, yes, more or less. Anyway, besides the 12mm, I don't think the lenses are unique, and the first 2 Bessas weren't particularly high-quality. > Otherwise they're relegated to more middle-of-the-road > products, and hoping for a broader market appeal. I think Cosina is probably doing exactly what Pentax is doing - financing their higher end stuff with the low end. In Cosina's case the the low end stuff doesn't have the Voightlander name on it. Than again, I have no access to CV's books, so I really have no clue as to how they do it. > Sure CV started > with cheap cameras - that's a fine way to start a new business or > line. How do you know? > If the concept proves itself, and starts making a little money > and developing a customer base, the line gets expanded. Why are you trying to make all these business arguments without data? Do you have expertise in marketing, product design or engineering? Even if you do, you have no data, so what's the point? It seems to me that you're trying to justify the product you want with information you don't really have. I do agree with your point that Pentax's image could use a little shining. I think they *have* come out with some nice products, but they don't seem to market them very well, at least not in the US. I want Pentax to come out with a 6x6 rangefinder with close-focusing and TTL flash. F/2.8 lenses would be nice too. I have no business justification for them to do so. tv - 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 .
