could you please simplify what you have posted? I don't understand the numbers or the premise. What exactly are you estimating and if pentax does what? Ill look at them for you but I cant decipher at this point... jco
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:16 AM To: 'pentax-discuss' Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) J.C. Wrote: > >I am waiting too, where are your estimates showing their decisions were justified? > >If you don't provide HARD EVIDENCE >and or estimates, why are you insisting >that I have to? My lack of "HARD" evidence isnt any worse than yours >is... > >GET IT? > >jco I don't like to quote my own messages, but here are some estimates that I sent back on Sept 20 in response to a message by Herb Chong: I wrote: >"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> given that Pentax hopes to sell 120K DSLRs this fiscal year, all of >> which >>are low profit margin, what do you think? >> >> Herb... > > >The question is not how many people are unhappy with the limited >K/M compatibility, but how many people (who would otherwise buy >a Pentax DSLR) are so unhappy that they are withholding their $$$? > >Let's say it's 1200. That's 1% of the 120K number you quote >above. Let's say that Pentax gets $500 US per DSLR. That's >$600K in lost revenue this fiscal year. Let's say that Pentax >takes a $50 profit per camera. That's $60K in lost earnings >this fiscal year. Not a very big number, is it? > >Disclaimer: The above estimates are WAGs with no credible >basis in any reality, mine or otherwise. > >--Mark The whole point is to give readers some idea why I conclude that it it not worth much $$$ to Pentax to bother with full K/M compatibility. My numbers are estimates and not intended to be "HARD EVIDENCE". If you disagree with the conclusion, then I would expect you either to have different estimates or a different method for deriving your conclusions. I personally think that the $500 and $50 above are somewhere in the ballpark (maybe +-20%), but that the 1200 lost sales might be a little high. The idea behind my message above was to provide something to adjust and tweak. If you really think that Pentax is losing out as a company by not providing full K/M compatibility, it shouldn't be too hard to see which of my above estimates are off and adjust them. My guess regarding your thinking is that you might argue that the 1200 lost sales per year is low. What do you think? 12000? 10% of the 120K total hoped-for sales? That would yield something like $600K in lost earnings, which starts to get large enough to matter on a corporate level. I know that it's all essentially idle speculation, but it is interesting and can be thought-provoking as long as the participants actually think about it. What I see in your arguments is an effort to take a desired conclusion and attack or discount lines of reasoning that do not lead to the conclusion, while propping up statements that support the conclusion with ALL CAPS and little else. The interaction can be fun to watch for a while, but eventually it gets quite tiresome. By the way, if you really want a digital body with full support for legacy Pentax lenses (K/M or even screw mount), I'll bet that Cosina/Voigtlander will do it before Pentax. Based on the Cosina/Voigtlander/Epson digital rangefinder for Leica lenses, it could be a pretty nice camera. --Mark
