> > > > This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay > > the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality > > they don't want and will never use. > > No offence, but everyone keeps pulling numbers out of thin air. Sometimes > it's ten bucks, sometimes it's twenty, but no one with any authourity has > actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, > overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. > Since, as JCO pointed out, the camera is already more expensive than a Canon > 10D (whatever), and is way more expensive than the Rebel digital (like about > 500 bucks), it seems to me that adding even more to the cost of the camera > for a dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. > > William Robb
No offence taken. I used the $10 figure because it was the lowest one I had seen quoted; other posts have talked about a $20 part, etc. Personally I think the cost would be significantly higher by the time you factor in all the development, testing & support costs.
