This is the unfortunate truth about all premium rangefinder style bodies. Everytime one got released it was for an uncompetive price. So they sold poorly and the manufacturers decided that rangefinder bodies were not sought after. People like rangefinder bodies, but they don't like to pay a 200$/€ premium for them. ..
The problem is sales, accounting and a crystal ball.
If they think they won't sell a lot, they have to raise the price to recover the development cost and not loose money.
But if they raise price too high people won't buy.
If they don't raise the price enough, and they don't sell enough units, they don't recover the development cost and they loose money. And other product line have to support the money loosing product.
To keep the cost down, they have to design to use as much existing parts as possible to reduce the development/manufacturing cost.
But that means something similar to what we have, not something new.
Can they put the guts of a SLR into the body of a RF, with minimal additional cost? The more different you make it, the more the cost goes up.
IF a manufacturer would change their model and make only rangefinder style cameras rather than SLR style, then the picture changes, as the multiple RF models share development costs, and the mfg expects to sell them in enough volume to support the development cost.
Where there are BOTH RF and SLR, there is dilution.
They provide more choices for the customer, but increased development, manufacturing, marketing and sales cost is spread over 2 different styles.
Do they sell enough units to make it worth spending $$$$$ on both model lines? Or should they consolidate into a single SLR style line.
There is no easy answer.
GM shut down the Pontiac and Oldsmobile Divisions.
