Bad analysis, marketing doesn't drop features that don't cost real
money. (This didn't cost real money, the R&D was already paid for and
the part costs pennies, once the tooling is built, there is no real
further cost, and it would have been no harder to design the mount to
accept the aperture simulator cam). Marketing drops features that cost
sales. Some products last, in marketing terms, forever. Lenses are one
of those products. I expect that Pentax engineering originally kept the
metering cam, it's existence was hinted at in all the *ist-D advance
literature, (the web is quite good for re-writing history, most of those
original on line documents are gone now), marketing didn't want to be
competing with earlier Pentax and 3rd party lenses, many of which work
just fine on the *ist-D. So they decided to make the K/M lenses
obsolete. They didn't count on the storm of protest that erupted here
and on all the Japanese Pentax lists. The green button and AE-Lock
kludge was easy to implement, (maybe the software team didn't think so,
but who asked them), so that's how they decided to quell the storm. It
seems to have worked very well for them.
Gonz wrote:
The point the Godfrey is trying to make is that Pentax Marketing has a
pot of features, each one with a target market segment and a
production/retail cost associated with it. They prioritize these
features according to their market research. If they want to hit a
certain price point, then they basically throw out the lower priority
items on that list. For whatever reason, probably because of certain
competitive features, the whole cam sensor thing got dropped.
Probably because not enough of their main market segment cared about
this enough. I.e. they are trying to aim the new DSLR's to a market
segment that does not fit your profile. Since they are trying to
survive in a very competitive and brutal market right now, its hard to
second guess their decisions based on our own little microscopic view
of whats good for us.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I miscommunticated. I threw out a number.
This part is not $50 added cost to selling
price as you should know, even real cheapo
budget third party entire cameras have this
part. it's a pot and a spring and and a A/D
channel. You cant be serious if you think
in todays market that would cause a $50
price increase, it wouldn't and its probably
a $1 part nowadays. this is incredibly simple
cam sensor. its just like a sliding volume
control you would find on a $10 am radio.
Secondly EVEN IF it did add $50 to the cost
of the camera I wouldn't even think for a
second to pay that $50 because the value
it adds to the body would be way more than
$50 to me. BUT IT WOULDNT- NO WAY.
I CONTINUE TO RANT because you keep missing
my key point, if you don't have old lenses
than sure its irrelavant to you. You are not
a long time loyal pentax customer. You don't seem to understand that
these new lenses and bodies
don't have to abandon K/M- if they did in the
name of progress I think you would have a point
but there isnt anything preventing the continued
support K/M from a financial, product cost or technical standpoint
what so ever. WHAT NEW FEATURE is gained by this
abandonment? NONE. No new lens feature, no cost
savings... If the camera was actually $50 less for you to buy because
of this missing part AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS-
that's barely worth the loss of compatability
even if you don't have any K/M lenses because
it would give you the option of getting/using even borrowing them.
But if you do have any K/M lenses, especially
really good expensive ones, then the hypothetical
$50 savings in the body cost isnt a savings
at all it's a major liability because you may have
to replace them with new models because of lack
of the $1 pot.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday,
September 18, 2005 10:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
JCO,
You've articulated your position clearly and at length. However, it
isn't going to change anything, only Pentax can change what they
decide to do. $5 worth of parts in the camera translates to a $50
bill at retail price. Pentax doesn't feel it's warranted by the user
base buying these bodies, evidently. They've done a better job of
legacy lens support than anyone else, barring Nikon's support of
AI-S lenses in their top of the line cameras only, which I feel
should be lauded rather than disparaged; I certainly applaud the
level of support they have already offered since it is better than
their competitors.
Do you think you can relax and just accept the fact that this is how
it is? Write Pentax and explain your dissatisfaction. Others who
feel similarly can do the same thing. In the end it's up to Pentax
to decide how to work their business. They're the ones who know the
costs of producing the cameras, not us, but I wager that that $5
part buys three or four more marketable features that are
significant to the people who might be interested in the cameras.
I'm satisfied with my Pentax equipment, with whatever warts it might
have, and have no great interest in buying many 30 year old lenses.
So it doesn't make sense for me to take them to task over something
that has no significant impact on my use of their products. I want
to see them upgrade their lens line and bodies to new standards, not
the old. That's a better strategic direction.
You obviously feel differently about it, but ranting to the PDML
about it is not going to change anything.
Godfrey
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
