I stated a whole bunch of reasons it was questionable IN THE THREAD. none of which have I changed my position on. IF you want proof I am wrong then go back and read the reasons I gave and the arguments I made supporting them or start new arguments based on my old statements.
If I say the reasons are very questionable on their decisions regarding product support then it means just that. they are not without any doubt correct because as it has been said many many times there is the conflict of interest that they may have dropped the customer support to force you to by new product when the older one you already bought FROM THEM would have worked fine for your application but it no longer will due to dropping of support which is not expensive at all in a new design... and I did give estimates on the cost of that part... And I specifically pointed out that cameras and lenses don't work by themselves, these are systems components. The value of a new body is definitely related to how well it works with existing system components like lenses. So you cant just say that if you remove a $X part from the body that it has a fixed $X benefit to the customer in lower purchase price, it depends on the loss in value on his other components too. In this context it means that what the feature is worth depends on what other system components the buyer has. And since that is going to vary from customer to customer there is NO EXACT WAY to determine as to what the feature might be worth in the field overall..You might try to estimate but as others explained these kind of estimates are often WAY OFF THE MARK when all is said and done... So exactly what kind of hard evidence you suggest I provide you? And secondly just to prove a point, I WANT HARD EVIDENCE FROM YOU that pentaxs customer support decisions have been unquestionable. if you cant provide me with HARD EVIDENCE to prove that's true, then don't say Im wrong. (see what I mean? you cant use lack of hard evidence as a valid argument to disprove my contentions unless you provide some and I don't. if you don't then why are you asking me to? GET IT? JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) > > > So you asked me to give you reasons why > I contend that pentaxes K/M support decisions have > been questionable Correct? Not quite. I am asking you to send me hard information regarding what you called Pentax's questionable reasons. heres what you said: ">> Pentax has no compatabiliy issues with K/M >> lenses whatsoever, they just have chosen >> to not support key functions on the K/M lenses >> for reasons that remain very questionable >> at best...." I just want to know what questionable reasons they were, officially, from Pentax Japan. You contend they are qustionable, so i presume you now what they are, and where they can be found to read. A press release would do the trick. Your questionable reasons are plain enough. William Robb
