Originally posted by Class A So do you think if they had offered their lenses and *ist DSLRS for higher prices they wouldn't have ended up being bought up?
I suspect even by then, it was too late. Pentax camera bodies had been steadfastly lagging behind the competition since the late 60s, early 70s. The Nikon F2 and Canon F1 cameras went unanswered by Pentax for almost 10 years until they released the LX.
Camera body specifications are what sell camera bodies. Camera bodies tend to sell lenses.
Pentax forgot that, and lost lens sales to companies that were making higher performance bodies.
Minolta allowed themselves to lag as well, and they eventually lost their camera division for it.
To go back to your question, the *istD was no performance match to it's competitors when it was introduced, and I recall it was a very expensive camera to buy into. At introduction, the *istD was overpriced, and I suspect if it had been introduced at a higher price point, it would have failed.
Quote: "Undervalued their products"? I don't think so. If you missed the boat and lag behind, you've got to give the customer some reason no to ignore you.
Whatever semantic spin you want to give it, if your selling price is too close to your manufacturing/distribution cost to allow for profit, then you aren't going to make enough money to survive.
If you fall so far behind the curve that you have to sell below cost to make the sale, then as a company, you are pretty much doomed to fail.
Quote: Elsewhere you seem to express that it is "in line" with competitors. Are competitors charging a hefty premium as well?
I was quite pleased to see that the FA50/1.4 was priced correctly. It does reinforce my opinion that the pricing complaints are unjustified.
The pricing is not "preposterous, it would seem.
Some other products seem to me to be rather on the high side compared to the competition, but if the development costs have to be recovered over fewer sold units, then the price can be expected to be higher.