The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway!
You make a good point but it's a technical point and I think you are confusing people. At least I was confused the first few times I read your statement.
K mount lenses were introduced in 1975. The LX was introduced in 1980. While the LX could use screw-mount lenses with an adapter, that resulted in the loss of some features (like open aperture metering) so you deem the LX to have been "fully compatible" only with K mount lenses, and K mount lenses had a 5 year history at the time that the LX was introduced.
The *ist-D is compatible with all "A " lenses, and the later F and FA lenses. "A" lenses were introduced approximately 20 years ago. So this camera has 20 years worth of lenses that it can work with.
Personally, I'm not terribly upset about the *ist_D's lens compatibility. I have precisely one lens - my Rikenon 55m f1.2 - that I would really like to use with a digital body. But since I hardly ever use it with film, I'm not losing out too badly to be unable to use it with digital.
I don't pretend to be able to count, but I looked at the current PUG and wondered how many of the shots there could be taken with the *ist-D. It looks like there are 63 entries, 20 of which were shot with K or M lenses, and 3 of which were shot with screw mount lenses. When I did not know the particulars about a third party lens, I assumed it was A compatible.
I think that is a telling statistic. In regards the folks on this list, the compatibility issues of the *ist-D could be significant.
Of course, a lot of folks who use older lenses may not be interested in a digital body under any circumstance.
As a Pentax user, I hope the *ist-D works out well. If it kicks out good, low-noise images, I'll buy one.
But the Pentax corporate and marketing types need to understand that if the Pentax brand does not have any meaning, they will fail. Pentax used to be associated with Super Multi Coating, but as was discussed her some time ago, "SMC" is now just a trade mark. Pentax used to stand for backwards compatibility, but the *ist cameras toss that aside. So what defines Pentax as a brand? Auto focus abilities? No. Auto metering abilities? No. Build quality? Except for the Mz-S, no.
It's not enough to be good at everything. To survive, a brand needs to be good at everything and outstanding at one or two things. So what is Pentax outstanding at? They used to be outstanding at compatibility. Now??? Pentax is not outstanding at autofocus, they are not outstanding at autometering, they are not outstanding at pro level support (ie. -renting lenses, etc.), they are not outstanding in lens lineup (something they had with the A series)...
My personal analysis is that Pentax dug themselves in a hole with the compatibility issue, and now they are trying to pull themselves out. Maintaining backwards compatibility is expensive, and gets you little in the market. But they gotta come up with some defining factor, or they will fail. They can produce perfectly fine and competent products, but if people don't associate "Pentax" with something outstanding, they won't buy into it as a brand
I can only hope that the management at Pentax is sophisticated and competent enough to actually understand the marketplace and produce products that will be successful. In that light, the *ist-D may be a step in the right direction. But I worry that it may be just another random step from a company that has seemingly wandered about randomly though the marketplace for the last 20 years.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
