mike wilson wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> William Robb wrote: >> >>>Where is the economic advantage to them to put a feature on a camera of >>>little benefit to a very small % of the user base? >>>One user being willing to buy a feature doesn't make a very rational >>>argument for inclding something, does it? >>>There is a much larger % of users who wouldn't use it, don't want to >> >> pay >> >>>for it, and may look elsewhere for a camera (read different brand) >> >> >> And in fact these are the people who represent the most desirable >> demographic for Pentax: The college-age crowd just getting into >> photography - who may become life-long Pentax users if that's the >> system they can be persuaded to buy into today. Despite the elitism we >> older, more experienced photographers feel, we aren't a very profitable >> long-term investment to pursue. > >With the greatest respect 8-) that's cobblers. Middle-aged and older >people are where the money is at. No kids (if they've got any >sense....), house paid for, at the peak of their earning potential. >They are the ones with money to throw at expensive hobbies and pastimes.
These kids will become affluent middle-aged people someday and if they start shooting Canon now that's what they'll be shooting when they have piles more to spend. This isn't just my opinion of who they *should* be marketing to: Look at the advertising and it's pretty clear who the smart manufacturers *are* marketing to. And it ain't us. >> The people who Pentax most needs to attract weren't even *born* in 1982 >> when the "A" series lenses were introduced! (Isn't that a scary thought >> for a lot of us!) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
