How can something they put in $100 cameras cost $300? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
John Francis wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses. (Which I'm not >>> going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening) So it's worth >>> much more than that to me. Count me in. >>> >> Well-said. I also have no intention of buying new lenses. At >> least not high-quality ones. I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that can >> reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast >> glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass. >> >> -Cory > > So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might > sell a few more bodies to people like you. On the other hand, though, > they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra > cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300 > that has been suggested here). And those sales they lose are more > likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others > like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have > no intention of buying new lenses. > > I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
