"Joe, Can you please explain your post a bit more? You come across as someone whining about not being cultivated by Pentax. Is that what you really try to say?
Jostein
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Joseph Tainter ">Doug's topic (qv), it seems to me, points to why Pentax may be >short-sighted in not making the newer cameras fully k-mount >compatible. Granted, Pentax is looking toward future users >and future compatibility. >But doesn't Pentax benefit from cheerleaders among established >Pentax users? When people ask me about cameras, I steer them >toward Pentax. Althought I complain here, I am, for the most >part, a cheerleader. I would think that Pentax would benefit >in the future market by keeping long-time users as cheerleaders >rather than whiners. It is a type of product endorsement. >For many long-time users, recent product developments are not >accomplishing that. The problem, as so often, seems >to come down to inept marketing. Pentax needs cheerleaders >as part of its marketing program, and cheerleaders need to > be cultivated. > >Joe"
My point was simply that Pentax is unwise not to please established users, even if it is designing a strategy for the future that is different from its recent past. My reasoning is that established users recommend Pentax to potential new users (I do), provided that they are pleased with Pentax. It is a way of steering new customers to Pentax. In other words, I think Pentax should keep k-mount compatibility and the aperture ring, and not produce lenses that lack a distance scale - if only for the continuing endorsement of established users. But as I've said here before, I know little about marketing, and apparently Pentax is reasoning differently. (I should mention that I own only two non-A lenses, and they work just fine on my 1ps, so for me personally this is not an issue.)
Joe
