Best FF Pentax Rumour Story EVER!!!!!!

Toralf Lund toralf at
Mon Sep 17 03:20:47 EDT 2012

On 16/09/12 23:48, Stan Halpin wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
>>> What you're suggesting for Pentax would be a recipe for oblivion. It's
>>> a rare product that can sell and compete by boasting about what it
>>> DOESN'T have/do.
>> It would be dumb to market it that way, of course, but there is after all a certain appeal in being able to classify a product as simple and/or easy to use (as a result of not having many functions), and there are examples in the camera business on how a focus on different qualities than a long list of features or "cutting-edge" technology can be successful at least in a relative sense. Just look at the interest generated by the recent Fujifilm cameras. Or the Leica Ms for that manner. We're of course talking about a quite different market, there, but it seems to me that to a certain extent, they sell because of the features they don't have. Like auto-focus, for instance. The marketing doesn't actually boast about not offering it, though.
>>>   OK, I can do w/o just about all picture modes, in
>>> camera RAW processing and in-camera HDR. But some people just love
>>> that.
>> I'd love to see someone should trying to make a camera without that functionality, though. Maybe it wouldn't be sensible as the only option, but if you based such a model on a different one with all those features, the development cost should also be close to 0. As such, it might not be such a bad idea from a business perspective, even if the marked might be limited.
> IIRC, back in the Spotmatic days, Pentax had two camera models identical in virtually all specs. Except one had a max shutter speed of 1/1000, the other had a limit screw which restricted the shutter speed max to 1/500. Don't want fast shutter? Pay less. I think this would also work today. Don't want video on your DSLR? Pentax should give you a discount of $200 compared to a "full-featured" model, then charge you a $225 firmware upgrade fee if you change your mind later.

I'd actually consider paying $200 *more* to get a camera without video,
built-in JPEG processing, picture modes, "custom functions" I don't
need, and so on, and so forth. But don't you go tell the sales people I
said that ;-)

- Toralf

More information about the PDML mailing list