Couple hundred dollars for cam sensor? that's absurd if anti shake is only $100 retail. $25.00-35.00 retail is probably a more accurate figure. Cheap! That is one of the reasons I am so pissed off about it, a key feature is missing for virtually NO savings in the final cost of the body. That's dumb. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:08 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: The JCO survey > >> > They don't know how many more sales they'll get with an aperture > simulator included, part of the reason they're getting these > pre-orders > it the touted backward compatibility. If were better wouldn't it be > logical to expect better sales to old farts like us? I'm certain that > they'd have one more if it had one. In fact I think there'd be a lot > more. There may even be pre-orders by old users who don't know the > limitations caused by lack of an aperture simulator, it's so seldom > mentioned in the reviews. Those people will be disappointed and won't > help create positive buzz about the next camera release. We get a > number of questions on this list about that regularly. How many of > them > decided to stay with Pentax or move on. We don't know, and neither > does Pentax. > >>The success of these, and earlier Pentax DSLR's, indicates that the >>lack of the aperture simulator isn't costing them sufficient sales to >>be concerned about. >> >> > Which may not last. They still need all the sales they can get, and > every useful feature helps. They need every sale thay can get, and the market is very price sensitive. Add a couple of hundred dollars to the price of a camera, and someone else will come along and scoop that camera's potential customers with a lower priced unit, and the product becomes a money loser. Or, they have to sell the unit at a price which does not allow them sufficient profit to make up for the extra feature (in this case, an aperture simulator), and the product becomes a money loser. It's purely a money thing. I'm surprised you don't understand that. 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
