2010/2/24 Tom C <caka...@gmail.com>: > Dichotomy again. What Pentax does must be correct, while what they do > not do is unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted.
Sorry, Tom, this is not to point at you personally, but your statement is exactly why I choose to call the 135 factor sensors "Fool's Format" instead of anything else. Whatever forum you go to, there are whiners (RiceWhine, anyone?) who bitch that their-brand-do-not-have-the-fancy-stuff-of-the-other-brand. Now it's the chip format, before that it was either buffer size, AF speed, number of spots in the light metering systems... the list goes on. If Pentax complied to the current whiners, the whiners would immediately turn to the lack of 135 format lenses, and think that Pentax sucks because they're not able to push a magic button and spew forth a full lens range to fit the new sensors within weeks of launching the new camera. The bottom line is that some people seem to thrive on disdain, demand what they can't have, and generally meet any new development with the intent of pointing out what could have been better for them personally. And then of course post that opinion to any online forum where they can hope to be read. If they really meant it as seriously as their posts would have you think, they should have switched brands a long time ago. And quite possibly switched brands multiple times over the years as the technology leadership drift from one brand to the next, but that's the only way to be honest about ones perpetual dissatisfaction with any particular brand. Pentax included. Why not focus on the nice things instead, for a change? Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.