"That's not necessarily true..." Which part? Or the whole thing in general?
;-) Dave On 10/14/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not necessarily true, right now I'm not that impressed with the > autofocus capabilities that my current camera displays. Most of the > time I'd much rather manually focus, and for that I'd rather use an M or > K or even A series lens. If Pentax improved autofocus enough that I > used it all the time I'd surely want autofocus lenses to replace most of > my M, K and A mount lenses, unless those lenses were something very > special. Additionally right now on film I have 17mm - 600mm covered with > primes (though a couple of these primes are not Pentax made) and 20-600 > covered with zooms, (with a gap between 210 and 400mm), but due to the > reduced size of APS-C sized sensors my collection is deficient in the > ultra wide range. The 17mm fisheye is like a 22-24mm lens on 35mm and > my widest prime 24mm gives the AOV as a 35mm on film. The same is true > of the FA 20-35mm, as you all know it looks like a 28-50mm. I'm a prime > candidate, (get it prime... oh, never mind), for some wide lenses. > Maybe the DA fisheye zoom or the 12-24, the 14mm etc. Reasonably fast > wide lenses with reasonable manual focus feel are no brainers. The only > reason I don't have the 14mm is that I've been perpetually short of > funds for the last two years, and I'd really like an A 15mm so I can use > in on my LX as well. Not that I've shot a lot of film lately. Pentax > will still sell lenses. > > David Savage wrote: > > >Say Pentax did reimplemented the aperture "simulator" in a future > >body, you buy the body (for $900, as an example). As a long time > >Pentax user with a vast collection of K/M glass you're happy as a pig > >in shit. > > > >Pentax on the other hand have sold you a $900 body & that's all their > >going to get. > > > >Now lets look at a buyer just coming into Pentax they buy the $1000 > >kit (body + 18-55 lens). In time said user reaches the limitations of > >the kit lens & decides to buy some new ones. They decide on a DA 16-45 > >(~$390) & FA 31 (~$880). That's an extra $1270 of product that Pentax > >has sold. (And if you don't think this scenario is realistic, go over > >to the the Pentax SLR forum at DPreview and you'll find a lot of > >people like that.) > > > >And this is the point some are try to help you understand. Pentax > >makes more profit from new users (& long time users) who buy new > >products & accessories, as apposed to the minimal profit they make > >from longtime users who only want a body that fully supports their old > >K/M lenses. > > > >Also, you didn't answer my initial question, so I'll ask it again: > > > >If you were in the business of manufacturing & selling cameras & > >associated equipment which type of customer would you prefer? > > > >Keep in mind that Pentax are a company driven by profits and not some > >sort of feel good institute. > > > >As to Canon being a good place to start from scratch, I'm sure there > >were/are a lot of FD users who disagree. Also how much would it cost > >you to replace your K/M lens line up with Canon equivalents? (If it's > >even possible) > > > >Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
