Guilty of using 30 year old cameras by preference, and even 50+ yo ones.
Also guilty of using 30 year old hi-fi. However I really don't think
manufacturers should cater to the likes of me.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Pål Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The first one is funny -if more people want
to buy something than want to sell it -
the price goes up. and since the supply
is fixed AND known to be large, that means theres more
DEMAND than before the prices went up.
How can you say that "lots" of people don't
want them? That could only be true if
these lenses were rare but they are not
as about half of all PK lenses ever made are K/M type
which is very important data provided by YOU.
This is basic economics...
There are 9 400 000 KM and M lenses manufactured. There are not 9 400 000 in use. Hardly anything made 30 years ago in current use. In addition to this fact, almost all K and M lenses are focal length and lens types hardly anyone want or buys these days. I'm afraid that 135mm, 28mm, 35mm and even 24mm lenses, aren't very popular unless they are very fast. At best compatibility with K and M lenses is a fringe benefit for the odd Pentax users who happens to have a K lens laying around. Everything else is too small a market to even consider. If Pentax will support K and M lenses they will do it in a body that cost some money.
There are in fact more Canon FD lenses made than Pentax K and M lenses. In addition they are more "desireable" because Canon sold more to the pros. Still, theres zero demand for an FD mount Canon DSLR. God, these Canon people must be stupid!
You do the fatal mistake of equaling you estotetric, (lunatic) fringe interest with interest of the average buyers.
You think thousands of dollars or even hundreds of
thosands of dollars FOR THE COMPANY is expensive
for a very valuable feature THEY CAN SELL - not give
away. The cost per body to implement is far less
than the income dollars per body they can sell it for
IMHO. That's not unreasonable, that's how companies
make money. Develop features that cost less to develop
than they generate in revenue. This is basic business economics.
There is no revenue for supporting obsolete equipment made 30 years ago. They make 120 000 DSLR's a year. If the feature cost $10 a body then its 1 200 000 out of the window.
It is not a valuable feature as you claim. Pentax can still claim the best backwards compatibility in the business. Thats probably good enough for the marketing people.
Your last comment is unsupported. What leads you
to believe this is the case? The exact number of K/M lenses
sitting around in closets unused is unknown
except for the fact we know its somewhere between
zero and roughly 9 million....But you are claiming
MOST of them are, WHY are you making that claim?
Because hardly anyone is using 30 year old stuff. Just like hardly anyone are using 30 year old hi-fi equipment. Those who do, do it BECAUSE it is old and they have rarely any interest in compatibility with new equipment.
Pål
