Well put, John. I don't know why this isn't obvious to all. Hell yes, I'd like the simulator. But I'd rather see Pentax continue to introduce new glass. And they'll only do that if there is sales potential. Paul On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:53 PM, John Francis wrote:
> 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
