Boz wrote: > I believe that a company should have a strategic vision for the future.
But they do.... > I see lenses as way more important that bodies. Some of us have > thousands (some have tens of thousands) of $ invested in K-mount glass, > and they hope to use it as long as they breathe. If one day (and I do > hope to live a few decades more) I cannot buy a new camera body that > supports my investment, then I will feel betrayed. Huh? This due to a couple of lenses, which are bottom of the barrel? Pentax have the best backwards compatibility in the industry and in spite of the fact that Pentax have constantly signalized that new cameras can use old lenses, some continue to whine for no reason in particular. > We live in fast and uncertain times, and I wish that Pentax would come > out and say if they want to play and where they will take the game. Huh? They have. In fact, I can't think of no other camera manufacturer who has stated what they want to do mor eclearly than Pentax. > I hope you are right. But I have this fear that Pentax might decide to > concentrate in the FAJ segment of the SLR market (because like you all > say, "this is where they make money"). But surely not more so than Canon does. They make even more money in this segment. > Canon earns its name with pro foto equipment and makes money with office > equipment. Pentax does not have a big partner to cover up the bills, so > they need to make money with each camera and lens that they release. > Now, guess which camera has a higher return on investment, the MZ-30 or > the MZ-S? Or an LX-AF? I don't think Canon subsidize their photo division with copy machines. If so, they must be an incredibly badly run business. They invest they money where they think they can get return. So does Pentax. > I have a dream! The dream was good....
