On 16/09/12 23:48, Stan Halpin wrote: > On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: > >>> What you're suggesting for Pentax would be a recipe for oblivion. It's >>> a rare product that can sell and compete by boasting about what it >>> DOESN'T have/do. >> It would be dumb to market it that way, of course, but there is after all a >> certain appeal in being able to classify a product as simple and/or easy to >> use (as a result of not having many functions), and there are examples in >> the camera business on how a focus on different qualities than a long list >> of features or "cutting-edge" technology can be successful at least in a >> relative sense. Just look at the interest generated by the recent Fujifilm >> cameras. Or the Leica Ms for that manner. We're of course talking about a >> quite different market, there, but it seems to me that to a certain extent, >> they sell because of the features they don't have. Like auto-focus, for >> instance. The marketing doesn't actually boast about not offering it, though. >> >>> OK, I can do w/o just about all picture modes, in >>> camera RAW processing and in-camera HDR. But some people just love >>> that. >> I'd love to see someone should trying to make a camera without that >> functionality, though. Maybe it wouldn't be sensible as the only option, but >> if you based such a model on a different one with all those features, the >> development cost should also be close to 0. As such, it might not be such a >> bad idea from a business perspective, even if the marked might be limited. > IIRC, back in the Spotmatic days, Pentax had two camera models identical in > virtually all specs. Except one had a max shutter speed of 1/1000, the other > had a limit screw which restricted the shutter speed max to 1/500. Don't want > fast shutter? Pay less. I think this would also work today. Don't want video > on your DSLR? Pentax should give you a discount of $200 compared to a > "full-featured" model, then charge you a $225 firmware upgrade fee if you > change your mind later.
I'd actually consider paying $200 *more* to get a camera without video, built-in JPEG processing, picture modes, "custom functions" I don't need, and so on, and so forth. But don't you go tell the sales people I said that ;-) - Toralf -- 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.
