Bruce wrote:
It appears that some well known facts aren't. According to Nikon's financial
statements they didn't lose money last year.
I didn't say Nikon lost money last year. I said their camera productions
wasn't profitable, and certainly not the upper end models. Nikon make their
living
Bruce wrote:
(?) RD allocation is strongly influenced on probable return. Product lines
that have greater growth potential will get more.
Exactly, and that's what some of us has been trying to say for awhile now.
The profit and money is in volume products. That rules out any 35mm slr
costing
There is no assumption in the statement. The word may makes it a possibility.
Don't try to hold me accountable for your careless reading.
--- Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax's biggest potential problem is that they may not have a big
pot to begin with.
What do you
Bruce wrote:
I sincerely doubt that Canon and Nikon lose money on their pro bodies.
I believe it's more or less an established fact that they do. There's no
money in slr production except for the entry level bodies.
Individuals (pros and amateurs) buy retail and not from the company's
Bruce wrote:
A highend image body, that's not widely used by pros, will be mostly noticed
by people already using that camera brand. It won't get you many new
customers.
Probably. However, I do believe that with the advent of bulky and big pro
35mm slr's there has opened up a so far
This is a supposition on your part, and not a fact that has been established
anywhere. In five years you've never been able to back it up. Prima facie the
contention makes no sense. Why would a company in business to make money, lose
money on every sale to an amateur photographer, when that is
Then don't buy one. You'll save a company money by selling you one at a loss. I
suspect you've used neither camera, and have no firsthand knowledge of what
you're talking about.
Olympus exploited the niche you are talking about 30 years ago. They were so
sucsessful that they stopped making film
Most tech companies reinvest 15-20% of profits in RD. Based on their web site
Pentax has the following lines of business:
Photographic/Binoculars
Medical
Surveying
Info Tech
Opthalmic
CCTV
It's quite probable that each is treated as a seperate profit center and their
avalable RD is based on
(missing from the
quote you took) of Individuals (pros and amateurs) buy retail and not
from the company's national distributor. was wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 March 2002 14:16
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
There are two significant pieces (in addition to the cost of manufacturing) to
a new product's cost: RD/engineering and tooling. What Nikon appears to do
(from my spectator's perspective) is to amortize the bulk of those costs in the
first year, or so, of sales (the price of their equipment
Bruce wrote:
This is a supposition on your part, and not a fact that has been established
anywhere. In five years you've never been able to back it up. Prima facie the
contention makes no sense. Why would a company in business to make money, lose
money on every sale to an amateur photographer,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 09:29 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Olympus exploited the niche you are talking about 30 years ago. They
were so
sucsessful that they stopped making film SLR's.
They stopped making SLRs 30 years ago because they couldn't sell
cameras? Could have fooled me, I
Bruce wrote:
Then don't buy one. You'll save a company money by selling you one at a
loss. I
suspect you've used neither camera, and have no firsthand knowledge of what
you're talking about.
Firstly, I've used both the F5 and the EOS-1. Secondly, you don't need
first hand knowledge to
Bruce wrote:
Then don't buy one. You'll save a company money by selling you one at a
loss. I
suspect you've used neither camera, and have no firsthand knowledge of what
you're talking about.
Olympus exploited the niche you are talking about 30 years ago. They were so
sucsessful that they
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Another factor is that some of the RD cost winds up
getting spread across more than one camera when the technology is
reused on
following models.
You just conceded our point to a degree. Now add that not just
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
It appears that some well known facts aren't. According to Nikon's
financial
statements they didn't lose money last year.
(http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/10yco_f-s.htm)
As I read this, they spent nearly half of
of 25,996. There doesnt
seem to be a net profit after all deductions here, and you can read the
figures in any number of ways...
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 March 2002 16:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
Chris Brogden wrote: I'm still sitting back with popcorn and a Pentax to
watch...
and I'm applying some new filters the trolling is getting too much IMHO.
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 11:27 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Did I say they stopped making SLRs 30 years ago? If they stopped 30
years ago
they never would have made the OM series. Would you like me to say it
now so
your relpy makes sense?
You've got to watch those developer fumes.
*Sigh*
Get an economics book and read page 1. Its just not worth the keyboard
wear...
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 March 2002 18:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax prices
A loss is not an expense. When yo lose
this. Another factor is that some of the RD cost winds up getting spread
across more than one camera when the technology is reused on following
models.
If you don't recoupe your expenses somehow, you go out of business.
And I think Pentax have done just that with the MZ/ZX series, except the
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: Pentax prices
*Sigh*
Get an economics book and read page 1. Its just not worth the
keyboard
wear...
A life raft washes up on a deserted island. In it are an
engineer, a scientist and an economist, along with a couple of
cases
Bruce wrote:
An example would be Caonon's ECF. It was originally
introduced on midline models, and later expanded to higher end ones. Does it
make sense to charge all of the development to the A2E? Unless you know how a
company is doing it's internal cost accounting it's not reasonable to jump
A pro body, in and of itself, won't do much good for image and increased
sales. Witness the Maxxum 9, which hasn't changed the perception of Minolta as
being a maker of mass market/amature cameras. Contax certainly makes cameras
that some pros use, but that hasn't given them widespread name
: Re: Pentax prices
A pro body, in and of itself, won't do much good for image and increased
sales. Witness the Maxxum 9, which hasn't changed the perception of
Minolta as
being a maker of mass market/amature cameras. Contax certainly makes
cameras
that some pros use, but that hasn't given them
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
A pro body, in and of itself, won't do much good
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
A pro body, in and of itself, won't do much good for image and increased
sales. Witness the Maxxum 9, which hasn't changed
Hi, Bruce,
Absolutely! I didn't mean that just by producing a pro body, the PJ's will come
running, and all will be well. That's why I specifically didn't define what a
pro body is. As we've seen from many prior threads, there's no one definition.
My simple definintion, for the purposes of
I suspect that few mfrs. offer many products at a loss at the incremental unit
production cost level. However, IMHO it is likely that in some instances they do
not recover development costs on some pro models. Thus any major increase in
volume for whatever reason is actually a benefit not a
Len Paris wrote:
That's the basic truth. If camera stores knew that you could
buy stuff cheaper direct from Pentax, how many camera stores do
you think would carry the Pentax line of equipment?
typed:
Now that is interesting.
None of my local camera stores market Pentax equipment
Hi, Malcolm,
I can only guess that Pentax UK has lousy sales reps, who don't
know how to
sell the products to the stores.
I've read a number of posts here from folks visiting our fair
country (Canada)
who've been pleasantly surprised to see actual Pentax displays in
stores, and
have
On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 04:57 PM, Len Paris wrote:
Of course, the folks that want
to trade in their old gear for new wouldn't be happy but I think
we here in the PDML would be happy to have a real Pentax website
where we could order anything they make at reasonable prices.
If they
That would work for me.
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
I think that they should follow the model of the Apple Store:
sell it
for a little more than other
It's the fault of their sale department. You have no such problem in Japan.
regards,
Alan Chan
Now that is interesting.
None of my local camera stores market Pentax equipment aggressively, mostly
Nikon or Canon, and are into digital over film now. One dealer looks down
his nose at Pentax and
I've read a number of posts here from folks visiting our fair country
(Canada)
who've been pleasantly surprised to see actual Pentax displays in stores,
and
have actually seen Pentaxes on the streets. I've read posts from those in
the
industry here, who say that the Pentax reps here are great
Right, you are, Alan! But why would that be? I earlier today proposed that
maybe it's marketing and/or Pentax sales reps as opposed to those from N and
C.
Your post got me to thinking, however. Could it be that the lack of a pro
35mm camera is the reason? I don't want to get into
I think that most consumers who aren't really photographers, chose N or C
mainly because they were famous. Their names are so big the average
consumers might not even know what their products looked like, let alone
seeing PJ using N or C camera at major events. So the question is not
whether
Friday, March 08, 2002, 10:19:27 PM, Collin wrote:
CB My son called Pentax last week
CB to get a price on the eyecup M
CB to put on his Super Program.
CB (I wanted one for my MX as well.)
CB They quoted about $30 on the phone.
CB They're only about $15 online.
CB Strange marketing.
CB Collin
Not strange at all. Pentax would rather you buy from their authorized dealers, so they
keep their prices higher to keep from competing with the dealers.
Doug
At 4:19 PM -05003/8/02, Collin Brendemuehl wrote, or at least typed:
My son called Pentax last week
to get a price on the eyecup M
to
: Re: Pentax prices
Not strange at all. Pentax would rather you buy from their
authorized dealers, so they keep their prices higher to keep
from competing with the dealers.
Doug
At 4:19 PM -05003/8/02, Collin Brendemuehl wrote, or at least
typed:
My son called Pentax last week
to get
.
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax prices
Not strange at all. Pentax would rather you buy from their
authorized dealers, so they keep their prices higher to keep
My son called Pentax last week
to get a price on the eyecup M
to put on his Super Program.
(I wanted one for my MX as well.)
They quoted about $30 on the phone.
They're only about $15 online.
Strange marketing.
Collin
--
---
Get over it.
Dr. Laura
--
-
This message is
42 matches
Mail list logo
