Chris Brogden wrote: > > So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), > then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down > an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering would have cost only a nominal amount of money. However, the whole point of its deliberate omission is to maximise sales of new lenses. Cynical, but now that the "caring, sharing 1990s" have gone, a new commercial reality means that screwing your existing customers is the way to go ... > I was scared of this happening when Pentax first started messing with > their entry-level bodies. First the MZ-50, which would only meter at full > aperture but would still stop down a K/M series lens properly. Then the > MZ-30 and 60, which won't even work with non-A lenses or with A-series > lenses taken off the "A" setting. Then the FAJ lenses, which don't even > have aperture rings. And now we have their first, and flagship, DSLR, > which essentially works like a digital MZ-60. This completely and totally > hoovers. Very well put, Chris. > Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease, considering that > Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital Rebel won't fit on their 35mm > bodies, but Pentax has a history of excellent body/lens compatibility, > which they now seem to be doing their best to throw away. Pentax can't > hope to compete with N/C in many ways, but they've still been able to > carve out a niche for themselves by offering inexpensive entry-level > bodies, high-quality lenses, and excellent compatibility. Once their > compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like Nikon's > G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just alientated a lot of > people. They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and p&s cameras, but > they'll simply be a lesser company than C/N instead of a different one. Exactly so. That's why the *ist and *ist D make me slightly sadder than I already was. ;-) John
