no way, that would take TONS of reasearch of something I don't need to know.
I will converse it for you, if a $20 price cut is GAINING SOME buyers compared to being $20 more expensive (removing the part and function) and the other choice, insertion of the part, is raising the price $20 but ALSO GAINING SOME buyers, due to the increased function of the K/M lenses, then who is to say which way yields the most buyers? I find it very hard to believe you would lose many buyers with the extra feature at such a small amount on a $600 + cameras because it's a good feature to have EVEN IF you don't have any K/M lenses because it's a nice option to have because and get this THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF KM LENSES that you cant get a new lens similar so the camera would be able to fully use a WIDER range of lens types and with pentax that feature is NEEDED. And even if it's a TIE, the part insertion is better because if your going to sell the same number of cameras and make the same amount of money its always better to do it while maintaining a strong customer and company loyalty rather than having a bunch of irate customers and a shady unreliable reputation... The simplest and best solution to me is for Pentax to offer it both ways in different models and let their customers buy what they feel is valuable to them but that hasn't happened on this one...The need at least DSLR model that fully supports ALL Pentax lenses with a bayonet mount- this is not only possible its possible at virtually no extra MFG cost compared to the current offerings.. IMHO. jco -----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:56 PM To: pentax-discuss Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) J.C. wrote: > You cant be serious or are you?? I wonder... > anyway, I am ABSOLUTELY convinced to my satisifaction > that the possible cost savings of this parts removal > cant be anywhere near the value of its inclusion > to K/M users and potential K/M users. We didn't > even discuss that, it not only disables the K/M > lenses you own, it disables all the K/M lenses > you might have owned but never will because of > the disablement... J.C. also wrote: > it will take years to know, do you really > think that its only limited to the sales > of one particular camera model when pentax doesn't know > how to manage an SLR system economy and there > customer base says goodbye forever and doesn't > buy ANYTHING from them anymore? J.C., I'm absolutely serious. I agree that full K/M compatibility is more valuable than partial K/M compatibility to K/M lens owners and potential K/M lens owners. That was not my question, however. I asked about the value of adding full K/M compatibility TO PENTAX THE COMPANY. Specifically, I asked about how many more camera body sales Pentax might have lost by not including full K/M compatibility. I also asked for estimates of the costs related to adding the capability. Let me clarify my question and ask you for an estimate of how many camera body sales (of any model) Pentax might have lost (or may lose in the future) by including only partial K/M compatibility across their entire DSLR line. Care to publish some estimates? --Mark
