P�l Jensen wrote: > > Peter wrote: > > > All this doesn't make sense. Isn't the MZ-S a > > mid-level camera? > > That depends on how you define mid-level. I think most put it in the semi-pro class >somewhat above mid-level. Personally, I define mid level as anything between the >MZ-5n and the Dynaxx 7. > > >It's only a year old. Pentax has > > never replaced an upper-end model this quick. > > No. But the MZ-S is a special case (It is in fact close to two years old). Pentax >decided to manufacture the MR-52, the MZ-S digital sibling, but dropped the idea >after the production line was installed. The MZ-S was basically introduced to >recouperate developing and tooling cost for the MR-52 project. I cannot imagine >Pentax will continue with this platform when they have developed a brand new one >customized for both digital and film. > > P�l
Before reading all the following posts to this thread, I will agree that your assumption seems to be on solid ground. Once they get a new body design introduced that accommodates both digital and film, and is successful, why continue what seems to be a 'stop-gap' product? On the other hand, if it ensues that the MZ-S has an increasing larger following, year by year, or even level sales figures (!) why not keep it on the market? As imagined, it all depends on how the public treats the new introduction. If the new camera platform is as good as Pentax believes/hopes it will be, nothing lost, and sales of the new one will eventually result in lower purchases of the older product, leading to it's eventual demise. In the meanwhile, you [Pentax] don't disappoint or abandon your loyal customers... I guess we'll see! keith whaley
