Originally posted by EArenz It shouldn't be a question of raw profit. It should be a question of supporting users. ... As far as cost goes though, how much do they lose by alienating users (like me) who have supported Pentax for 50 years to great extent because of stellar lens compatibility?
Happily for us, since Ricoh took over, the strategy has been to grow the Pentax brand, rather than just cut costs. Ricoh do understand the Pentax ethic, and have done a pretty good job in preserving it, while modernizing their range. Backward compatibility of cameras and lenses is a key part of that. I have no doubt that they are aware that introducing lenses that are not compatible with even recent camera bodies hurts that perception of continuity - and no doubt they have factored that in to any calculations. But in the end, as much as we might like to think of Ricoh as a kind of community organization, they have a duty to their shareholders to make money.
Originally posted by EArenz The code is already done, it shouldn't be that a big deal to insert it into any camera firmware for cameras that are hardware capable.
Because the K-3ii is firmware-upgradeable we assume that the K-3 is too. But we don't really know that yet do we? Presumably KAF4 was on the drawing board when the K-3ii and K-S2 were being developed, but it might not have been when the K-3 or K-S1 were being developed (and of course development of the K-30/K-500/K-50 line, and the K5 line, go back some way further). Until we get a definitive answer from Ricoh, we are all speculating.
---------- Post added 09-22-16 at 10:09 AM ----------
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Count me in even if I have no illusions.
Nor do I, but as Pope said, hope springs eternal in the human breast.