Originally posted by mecrox Legacy lenses don't make Pentax or the retailers much if any money,
Yes and no. Used lenses in retailers are often sold on consignment or were purchased from consumers for credit and have a large mark up with minimal investment. I believe consumers are also more likely to buy a Pentax if they know they have the option of using legacy lenses, and thus it will only help the dealer to sell Pentax bodies.
Originally posted by mecrox Third-party lenses make no money for Pentax and Tamron and Sigma withdrew
Ricoh charges a license for third parties to incorporate their patents, and does make money. If this wasnʻt true, why would Canikony permit third party alternatives to their own lenses? The traditional third parties like Tamron and Sigma withdrew because theyʻd rather make a bigger profit focused on the big fish. Meanwhile the upstarts like Rokinon and Irix have filled the void with their lower overhead and smaller production runs.
Originally posted by mecrox Pentax has to look forwards, not backwards.
Agreed Pentax has to look forward in terms of economics, share holders, profitability, and the next gen of photography. But as a consumer or prosumer, I would still argue that a Pentax APS-C, FF, or MF in the hands of anyone that knows their ʻsuccessʻ is based on them, not their gear, has at their fingertips today, what they need.
If the Canikony are the Toyota, Honda, GM, and VWʻs of the world, I think of Pentax in the category of Subaru or Mazda; smaller production, less models, etc, but still relevant because theyʻve found a niche. Part of the Pentax niche are the special folks of this forum, the legacy glass, and all the features that makes a Pentax unique.