P.J. Alling wrote: >I'll start this by saying I've not taken a K-01 apart personally, but >I've seen exploded diagrams, and it's pretty much a K-30 without a >pentaprism. The extra cost was for the celebrity industrial designer, >and /possibly/ increased profits. > >You don't take a piece of complex technology, which requires, fairly >extensive and even in Vietnam, expensive hand fitting, off of a product >and have it cost more than a similar product that includes that device. > >If Pentax, (OK, Hoya I guess), hadn't farmed out the design in a attempt >to put lipstick on the Pig, and simply had one of their very competent, >(who would argue they aren't, given the ergonomics pretty much all >Pentax cameras), designers, do the packaging of the K-01, I dare say it >would have been a much less expensive camera at it's introduction, and >due to that lower price, probably would have sold much better, Then it >might not have been a pig that required lipstick. > >Finally a large part of the heft of a Pentax camera is the stainless >steel frame, and the body of the K-01 most likely has several gaps where >the motor and linkages to operate the mirror would have been. That's >what I'm basing my assertion of there being enough space for an EFV on. >It would have taken a serious redesign to repackage and consolidate that >space, but it could have been done. > >Hoya decided however to do this on the cheep, and no one, after the >debacle the K-01 became, is likely to try it again.
I think you're mistaken about virtually all of this. You need to try out one of these cameras. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
