it will take years to know, do you really think that its only limited to the sales of one particular camera model when pentax doesn't know how to manage an SLR system economy and there customer base says goodbye forever and doesn't buy ANYTHING from them anymore?
You don't put out a body at say $20 cheaper price that wont fully work as intended with $1000s of dollars of beautifully made perfectly good (great actuallty) lenses THAT FIT the camera and are NOT incompatible to "SAVE" the customer $20 - that's really dumb unless there were only very few still working K/M lenses still in exsitance and that's not the case at all in my experience... -----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:36 PM To: pentax-discuss Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I think I have just struck GOLD on this one! The cost reduction of the >istD has to be measured against the COST of the lenses it does or >doesn't support. You cant say that $5 savings in the body is worth >losing thousands in the great lenses....SLR systems are systems. That >is you have to make SYSTEM decisions on features in bodies, not try to >evalute the body costs alone in making the feature body set. You cant >just remove cheap things out of the cameras available that don't end >upsetting the whole camera SYSTEM economy. I disagree. For a company selling camera equipment, the cost reduction (for both development and production) is measured against its effects on revenues and earnings from the sale of products going forward. As I asked in another message, what is your estimate of the number of sales that Pentax has lost due to their lack of full K/M support in their DSLR line? --Mark
