Yes, I stand corrected, there is a $100 price differece Between anti shake and no anti shake. Now what is the World makes you think that the simple aperture cam Would cost anywhere near that much. Development is Not really an issue because if you know what it is It's really simple, FAR FAR less hardware and software Is needed. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money. And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is SR). Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and are less reliable (more stuff to break). You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box. The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said, if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be much less to add it afterwords) -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100 > Complete camera? > > Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"? > They did this already in film camerras, duh. > > What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake > And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100. > > Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly > New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so > Simple and cheap. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > >> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price >> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera >> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the >> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor. > > What would it cost per camera? > Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer > as? > Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well. > Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it > > vs. the number of sales lost on price point. > > You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know. > What are the numbers, John? > > William Robb > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
