The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > > I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses. (Which I'm not > > going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening) So it's worth > > much more than that to me. Count me in. > > > Well-said. I also have no intention of buying new lenses. At > least not high-quality ones. I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that can > reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast > glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass. > > -Cory So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might sell a few more bodies to people like you. On the other hand, though, they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300 that has been suggested here). And those sales they lose are more likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have no intention of buying new lenses. I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
