yes it does but if you don't do the full analysis either then this particular aspect of the issue is just plain unknown and it limits your argument too and should be set aside. It doesn't limit my argument any more than it limits your or anyone elses opposing viewpoint if its an unknown now does it?
Regarding millions of lenses I think that it's often forgotten that SLRS used to be much more popular mainstream photo items before the advent of advanced P&S cameras that followed them in the 80's. So back in the K/M era which was ALL THEY MADE from 1975 thru 1983 not only were there many more lens buyers, at that time PENTAX had much more market share too. (years earlier PENTAX made the most popular SLR in the world the spotmatic, boy times have changed) the pentax M cameras in particular were very popular cameras... Those two factors combine to mean that millions of K/M lenses were made and sold during those years. I made the statement before that no one questioned which totally surprised me but I wouldn't be surprised if there are MORE K/M lenses in existance than ALL OTHER LATER SERIES COMBINED because by the time A/F/ and FA lenses came out SLR popularity had waned substatially in general and at the same time PENTAX lost a lot of market share on top of that. The A lenses are far rarer than K/M lenses and in my experience so are the rest. Both Minolta and canon had AF well before Pentax did and that may have a major reason why pentax lost market share, I don't know, but that's why I said millions of K/M lenses.....Now if anybody wants to argue that matter BRING IT ON because I would love to see some real production data or more info on it but I do know what my long time experiences have told me and that's that there are a lot more of K/M lenses in general compared to the other series... JCO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:49 AM To: 'pentax-discuss' Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) My Question: >> >> 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? >"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded: > > no way, that would take TONS of reasearch of something I don't > need to know. Even for a wild guess? You talk of "millions of lenses" in other posts, but you won't guess whether Pentax might lose "hundreds of sales" or "thousands of sales" or "tens of thousands of sales"? Without some kind of order of magnitude estimate like this, it is very hard to make a case from a business perspective for choosing between partial and full K/M compatibility. That's fine, but it does limit your argument. --Mark
