Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 04:14:25 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message ----- From: alexanderkrohe Subject: Re: *ist D revisited > > No. The point that I was trying to make is that when > > you have a fleet of K/M lenses and you are happy with > > it, it simply does not make sense to buy the new > > bodies at all. > > > > I think this comment shows the real reason why most > > people are upset. They feel "betrayed" by the company > > rather than they are upset about any big loss of money > > or of usability of the equipment. > It makes sense to want to use the most modern cameras that the > manufacturer produses, within the limitations of the lenses in your > fleet. It does not make sense to go out and buy several new lenses > every time the manufacturer introduces a new camera body line. This is certainly true. However, I think when someone is happy with say a fleet of K/M lenses I don't think it would make sense to buy say an MZ-S, He won't get more photo-technique options. > This is the reason for system compatability. > Nikon has managed it in their top end film cameras, Yes, within the Nikon system it is absolutely possible to set up a fully inter-compatible mixed MF AF system. However you have to know what you are buying. And you have to pay a certain price for that (you have to stick with the more expensive bodies and lenses). I expect Pentax to go the same route. Remember the MZ-S is designed around the aperture ring. > though not in their > digital SLRs, which I expect annoys a few people using Nikon. see below > I can understand them dropping it for the low end cameras where the > market won't be concerned (for example, I wouldn't buy an Asterist > because it is a cheap piece of junk, not because of system > incompatability. I am not in that camera's market), I basically agree. However, the *ist light meter may be more easily to operate (and possibly more accurate)even than that of the LX (the LX viewfinder indication shows only 1EV steps, the *ist 1/3 ? steps). Also the *ist junk may well have the best AF of all Pentax bodies. Good technology in a junk package has become the fashion since people buy from mail orders. Compare feature list and prices ... > but in the high end cameras, where the target market can be assumed to be > somewhat more advanced, compatability becomes an issue. > The Asterist D will be a high end camera, based on price and target > market (if the thing actually makes it to market). No I don't think this is correct. Digital cameras have different price categories with generally higher price levles. People prepared to pay $500 for a digicam that I would rate as P&S. Also the Nikon D100 which may be within the price range of the *istD (we actually don't know yet) is not fully compatible with Nikons MF lenses. For that you have to go for the expensive Kodak DCS14s. > High end consumers have a different set of expectations, system compatability being one of > them. I would not be upset to pay a premium to get system compatability > out of the camera body, I doubt that the *istD will cost a premium price. However, in the digital world everything is going to be more expensive; thus everything is relative ... > I would be upset to have to replace a half dozen > or more expensive lenses to use the new body, especially if it is the > top end one, and no other choice exists in the line up. > > If Pentax chooses to drop system compatability in their digital SLR, > and if I decide that I need (want) to go to a digital SLR, > then I would be looking at a manufacturer with full system compatability. > Right now, that means Canon. My decision will probably made between the Olympus 4/3 and the Pentax *istD. That 10 of may 14 lenses are compatible with the *istD, is certainly not an obstacle to get one. However, IMO the question is rather: do I really need the large image circle of the 35mm systems for high quality D-SLR systems ? Olympus says no and I am curious to find that out in "real life". > Since I cannot afford or desire two complete small format systems, I > would be dumping Pentax in favour of Canon. Canon is not more compatible than the *istD. You just don't have FD lenses therfore you don't bother. FD lenses are of the same vitage than K/M lenses ... I think with Canon you will have to pay money for getting much of the same. How about Oly (I know it is still vapor ware ...) > Hopefully, the version two digital SLR will offer backwards > compatability, as that will make me (and a lot of other advanced > photographers) much happier by allowing us to stay with equipment we > already own, rather than forcing us into another camera system. I do not expect pentax totally ditching compatibility. I expect they want us to pay for it (as Nikon does) > > William Robb Enjoy, Alexander __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
