Originally posted by Nicolas06 I agree the smaller body option to be a good reason... But I don't get the point of why in hell I should pay more for something new, all else being equal, just because it is new?
Was that my point? I sure didn't mean it that way.
Older models are always cheaper because they are being marked down to clear out inventory. All else being equal, why would you buy an old model
unless it was cheaper than the new?
The previous plastic bodies had comparable launch prices, and each one was a poor value compared to previous model(s) on mark-down. Each also had unique features, and I think that should factor into 'value'. I think the K-S1 has comparable value to its predecessors
when new. (Some photographers might put more value on WR, some on small size, some on two dials, some on megapixels. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. I object to a unique feature which I want, being dismissed as worthless.) If the K-50ii is launched at $800 (it could happen) - will that make it the worst camera of 2015?
Previous launch prices:
K-m/K2000: $700
K-x: $650*
K-r: $800
K-30: $850
K-50: $700
K-S1: $750
So I think my point is (
I don't even know any more): if I could have any of these cameras new at what I consider a fair price ($650), I would probably go with the K-S1, because it has the features I want most.
*the K-x launched at $650, and that was considered a very good price, but that was Hoya, and while prices were good, Pentax was producing fewer and fewer new products. I don't they could have survived much longer under that system.