Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lenscompatibility in perspective)

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I think I'd finally bite on this one. I tend to agree with Alexander 
here. When I was buying ZX-L I was already a somewhat experienced 
amateur. I had 6 years of SLR shooting with Zenit and some more years 
of P&S shooting with my trustful Fuji Discovery. I chose ZX-L over 
ZX-5n for two reasons - faster shutter and more advanced flash 
operation. Well, admittedly also because the former was some $70 
cheaper at the time. My intent was to eventually learn flash 
photography and so I wanted the most advanced spec-wise body that my 
money could afford.

After taking a look on how *ist looks now on Pentax USA site, I tend 
to think of *ist as of a logical successor of ZX-L.

By now I think that I should've bought ZX-5n for its better 
viewfinder, but it took me 1 year of constant amateur shooting (film a 
week) to get to that conclusion. So instead for the $70 that I saved 
with ZX-L, I bought me the ME Super <vbg>. 

Anyway, indeed one (more) example does not prove the theorem, but 
still, I can see the logic.

Finally, one more thought. My ultimate reason for choosing Pentax was 
total lens compatibility across all times, all generations, all 
everything. I did not care about MZ-30 or similar bodies by that time. 
If Pentax keeps producing not fully compatible bodies, I may be proven 
wrong in my choise. By the way, it occurs to me that my ZX-L might be 
the __last__ Pentax amateur class SLR camera that has full K-mount 
compatibility... So by now I can buy whatever lens I desire and it 
would work on both bodies that I have. Let's hope that by the time I'd 
decide to buy another body, I wouldn't be forced to look for second 
hand one.

Boris