I miscommunticated. I threw out a number. This part is not $50 added cost to selling price as you should know, even real cheapo budget third party entire cameras have this part. it's a pot and a spring and and a A/D channel. You cant be serious if you think in todays market that would cause a $50 price increase, it wouldn't and its probably a $1 part nowadays. this is incredibly simple cam sensor. its just like a sliding volume control you would find on a $10 am radio.
Secondly EVEN IF it did add $50 to the cost of the camera I wouldn't even think for a second to pay that $50 because the value it adds to the body would be way more than $50 to me. BUT IT WOULDNT- NO WAY. I CONTINUE TO RANT because you keep missing my key point, if you don't have old lenses than sure its irrelavant to you. You are not a long time loyal pentax customer. You don't seem to understand that these new lenses and bodies don't have to abandon K/M- if they did in the name of progress I think you would have a point but there isnt anything preventing the continued support K/M from a financial, product cost or technical standpoint what so ever. WHAT NEW FEATURE is gained by this abandonment? NONE. No new lens feature, no cost savings... If the camera was actually $50 less for you to buy because of this missing part AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS- that's barely worth the loss of compatability even if you don't have any K/M lenses because it would give you the option of getting/using even borrowing them. But if you do have any K/M lenses, especially really good expensive ones, then the hypothetical $50 savings in the body cost isnt a savings at all it's a major liability because you may have to replace them with new models because of lack of the $1 pot. jco -----Original Message----- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: green button wars (again) JCO, You've articulated your position clearly and at length. However, it isn't going to change anything, only Pentax can change what they decide to do. $5 worth of parts in the camera translates to a $50 bill at retail price. Pentax doesn't feel it's warranted by the user base buying these bodies, evidently. They've done a better job of legacy lens support than anyone else, barring Nikon's support of AI-S lenses in their top of the line cameras only, which I feel should be lauded rather than disparaged; I certainly applaud the level of support they have already offered since it is better than their competitors. Do you think you can relax and just accept the fact that this is how it is? Write Pentax and explain your dissatisfaction. Others who feel similarly can do the same thing. In the end it's up to Pentax to decide how to work their business. They're the ones who know the costs of producing the cameras, not us, but I wager that that $5 part buys three or four more marketable features that are significant to the people who might be interested in the cameras. I'm satisfied with my Pentax equipment, with whatever warts it might have, and have no great interest in buying many 30 year old lenses. So it doesn't make sense for me to take them to task over something that has no significant impact on my use of their products. I want to see them upgrade their lens line and bodies to new standards, not the old. That's a better strategic direction. You obviously feel differently about it, but ranting to the PDML about it is not going to change anything. Godfrey
