[yorik]

I have been wondering why the K5IIs is more expensive than the K5 II (and for that matter, why the D800e is more expensive than the D800), since on the face of things, the K5IIs has one less component than the K5II and could be conceivably cheaper. I have come up with four possible explanations.

(a) It's a supply and demand thing: Pentax expects to sell fewer models without the AA filter, so the price is correspondingly higher.

(b) It's a marketing thing: Some people will pay a higher price for the sharper images coming out of the IIs, so Pentax charges a higher price because it can.

(c) The production process for the IIs is more expensive: For example, the AA filter has to be removed from the sensor module, and the sensor then needs to be retested to make sure that nothing happened during the surgery. (Or the AA-filterless modules are more expensive to buy from Sony because of (a)...)

(d) Components (either hardware or firmware) have been added to the IIs to compensate for the missing AA filter in some way.

My bet is on some combination of (a), (b) and (c).

Anybody know, or have an (educated) opinion?

[Adam]

I would say that it's just a marketing thing, as the flagship obviously can't be cheaper than other bodies I would bet that the cost to manufacture a K-5 II is the same as the K-5 IIs.

[JinDesu]

My understanding was that, you cannot just take out the AA filter from a sensor design and expect it to still work. In order to remove the AA filter, the sensor design has to be revised - and this additional research cost is the differential between the AA-filterless models and the ones that do have the filter.

Plus marketing profit bumps.

[Anvh]

AA filter is not removed but replaced, so the amount of work is still the same but the production is lower so the price is higher.

[JimJohnson]

Ahh the world of marketing... When Kodak went to introduce its Gold C-41 color negative film, ISO/ASA 100 was considered to be the 'standard speed' for the existing C-41 film, and Kodak offered a higher priced (but grainier) ISO 400 version. Kodak's chemists had improved the Gold version to ISO 200 without grain increase. Marketing demanded an ISO 100 version. So here is what Kodak did: They took the ISO 200 film and added a neutral density layer on top to create an ISO 100 version.

Marketing said people would pay more for faster film, so... they charged slightly more for the Gold 100 than they charged for the old ISO C-41 film that would be phased out based on 'brighter colors', yada, yada. In short, they covered the cost of the neutral density layer. Then marketing set the price for the Gold 200 higher than the Gold 100 ... in short, people paid more for a product that cost less to manufacture. And finally, Gold 400, although slightly grainier, was a step higher than Gold 200.

And what happened? Cheapskates and fooled 'image purists' bought the Gold 100. But most of the public paid more for the Gold 200 because you got a full stop without additional grain (D'Oh!). Oh, and a whole crop of really cheap point & shoots were introduced that recommended the use of ISO 400 film. These were eventually replaced with the ubiquitous one-time-use cameras pre-loaded with Gold 400.

[Kerrowdown]

Products are priced to what the market will stand, when exactly did I become so cynical.

[russell2pi]

Product differentiation. If they're the same price, people don't know which one to pick. If they make them different in price and features, people feel like they have a choice to pick what's better suited to their budget and desire. Firmware feature-sets and in some instances deliberate firmware crippling are another example of this practice, where there are little to no cost savings on the manufacturing side but feature sets are manipulated in solely order to customise a product to a price point. Omitting things like a second $2 dial are another example of this practice.

Although I must admit it's a little odd to be pricing the 's' it as if it's clearly a net improvement for all users.

[kenyee]

(b) It's a marketing thing: Some people will pay a higher price for the sharper images coming out of the IIs, so Pentax charges a higher price because it can.

Nikon proved the market would pay more w/ their D800e...

Their D7100 is actually what I expected Pentax to release as the K-5II...just one body w/o an AA filter...

[L33tGreg]

price the market will bear?

[cbaytan]

I asked the same question here before and the get the answer like, D800E is expensive because it has two AA filters instead of one in D800, K-5IIs is expensive because Pentax gets sensors with AA filters from Sony and removes AA filters then puts into the IIs, I've been told, thats why .

[Anvh]

D800 also has 2 aa filters.

Nikon D800E Camera - Review