Almost all of those costs would have been the same, assuming the design
included the aperture simulator from the beginning. All of you are
making too much of the cost of the thing. Since my theory, and you
can't prove me wrong, based on the pre-release literature that I read,
is that it was removed from the design late in the process. It actually
cost more money not to include it in the original *ist-D. I won't make
any such claim for the Ds or DL.
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Well actually.... it could cost pentax less
that nothing..
I don't see why it woundnt make
pentax money because it adds more
value to the camera than it costs
Prove it.
Take into account the entire DSLR market, and not just this inbred
group of enthusiasts.
Give us the numbers, how much exactly, taking into consideration the
extra R&D for the camera, ramping up the extra asembly, etc. In fact,
please list all costs of adding this feature, right down to the
addition to the owners manual regarding the use of non A lenses for us.
Then tell us how much more they could sell the camera for before it
lost sales based on lack of other features or performance for it's
price class.
Then show us if it is a win money or lose money thing.
You came up with this shit, now prove it.
Or shut up.
William Robb
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
