J.C. wrote:
You cant be serious or are you?? I wonder... anyway, I am ABSOLUTELY convinced to my satisifaction that the possible cost savings of this parts removal cant be anywhere near the value of its inclusion to K/M users and potential K/M users. We didn't even discuss that, it not only disables the K/M lenses you own, it disables all the K/M lenses you might have owned but never will because of the disablement...
J.C. also wrote:
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?
J.C., I'm absolutely serious. I agree that full K/M compatibility is more valuable than partial K/M compatibility to K/M lens owners and potential K/M lens owners. That was not my question, however. I asked about the value of adding full K/M compatibility TO PENTAX THE COMPANY. Specifically, I asked about how many more camera body sales Pentax might have lost by not including full K/M compatibility. I also asked for estimates of the costs related to adding the capability. Let me clarify my question and ask you for an estimate of how many camera body sales (of any model) Pentax might have lost (or may lose in the future) by including only partial K/M compatibility across their entire DSLR line. Care to publish some estimates?
--Mark
