I think I would dispute that. Those who have old glass and can live
with the limitations. Those who don't know the old glass will buy new.
Those who have old glass and can't live with the limitations will look
for used A/F/FA glass and Pentax doesn't really benefit.
Adam Maas wrote:
>Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes, and that cost/benefit will rapidly diminish if Pentax brings back
>>>auto-exposure with old lenses. You can't have it both ways!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ? Maybe I'm not getting it. Are you saying that the price of
>>used MF glass will go up if it is supported better? I suspect you're
>>probably correct, which can only help.
>>
>> To me it seems like the benefit of new lensed (through quality,
>>weight reduction, autofocus, focal length, etc) should stand for
>>themselves. I thought that the benefits of a new product over an old were
>>supposed to do that... not be artificially depricated and lose
>>functionality.
>>
>> If I *needed* new AF glass, or a new item was produced with enough
>>quality differential to merit its purchase, I would jump right in.
>>
>>-Cory
>>
>>
>
>No, he's saying that Pentax will make more money if the K/M lenses
>aren't fully supported than if they are, as a larger percentage of
>people buying Pentax DSLR's will not be buying new lenses.
>
>-Adam
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
