J. C. O'Connell wrote:
YOU cant be reading my posts because I already
have REPEATEDLY stated that there is no way
the parts implemention cost doesn't justify
its continued feature in the body. If this
part cost the camera buyer $200 more or $100
more or even $50 more would have something to even talk
about, but this removal didn't save anywhere
near those amounts of money. I would seriously
estimate under $20 BUYER PRICE COST over the product run and
support of the Fine K/M lenses of which there
are propably millions of them and is well worth
$20 even if you don't have any yet on $600
purchase. If the camera was $100 total price it would be something
to consider but its not a $100 camera. It's a complex
very sophicated camera missing a cheap simple parts
that would enable dozens of great lens models costing thousands
of dollars to fully operate properly.
J.C., I read your previous posts. You've stated several times that full
K/M compatibility costs are justified. You've quoted low per-camera parts
costs to back up your statements. I'm interested in your estimates for two
other important factors: how much NRE to design, integrate, and test full
K/M compatibility, and how many lost sales if the work is not done?
--Mark
