>Stephen said: > Think about it this way: > > 1. If you have a bunch of older lenses you want to use, then Pentax > makes no money on you since they don't make much money on the bodies. > 2. If you are going to buy new stuff, then the bulk of the profit is on > the DSLRs which will take the new lenses without aperture rings. > 3. The firmware fix is good enough for most people. > 4. The size of the remaining group is not enough to influence business > decisions. Most of the money is made on the new technology. > 5. Leica is neglecting a new technology not facing a back-compatibility > issue.
In general, I agree with your analysis (unfortunately). If Pentax makes $50 selling me a *istD to to with my lenses that is $50 more than they would have made if I bought a Canon and new lenses instead. I am also kind of surprised to see that Pentax may not be making money on the accessories, either. A lot of discussion on this list is recommending third party lenses and even third party flashes, presumably because they are cheaper or provide features that Pentax does not. If Pentax does not make much on the cameras and everybody is buying third party accessories, where does Pentax make money? The firmware fix may be good enough for its target market, and good enough to justify not putting the mechanical connections in to future cameras. Leica has almost no features to be backward compatible with, technologically speaking. It does not appear to be features that are the Leica selling point. Leica has neglected a lot of new technologies. > I think the 6MP APS senors will be with us for quite a while. They > will always be cheaper than the 24x35 sensors, and their is a market for > cheaper SLRs. Therefore there will also be a market for these DA lenses > for quite a while. As a matter of fact, APS 6mp might stick around so > long that it becomes a permanent and not a stopgap format. If it stays cheaper enough, yes. Better DSLRs may all be full-frame, but there is always a market for cheaper stuff. DJE
