Mark Roberts wrote: > 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.
But if they go for Pentax now, seeing it as "good value for money" why won't they go for something else when they have money for "quality"? > > >>>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
