"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to >> > buy new ones. >> >> I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not >> consist of a significant number of people who own old lenses. They >> certainly comprise a significant portion of this mailing list but not >> the public at large. Not even close. > >Quite right. It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer >bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses.
Perhaps that's because the new camera bodies are actually *desirable*, unlike the J lenses? <g> Seriously, the J lenses are too slow (f/3.5 or f/4.0) to be of interest to me unless they have some other truly outstanding characteristic, which they don't. Their low weight might be appealing for a lightweight travel kit, but they're too large - I take an M-series prime when space is at a premium. Marketing-wise, I think that Pentax got it right for the most part with the J lenses: Their limitations won't bother the people who want this kind of lens. The people who are bothered by the lack of the aperture ring are people who, with a few exceptions, wouldn't want one of these lenses in the first place. With the cameras it's a different story. The DSLR is a highly desirable, top-of-the-line item. Even the film *ist is a great mid-level camera. For someone with mostly modern lenses it's a worthy successor to the 5n - fits nicely below the MZ-S and the entry-level cameras. Heck, I even considered one as a replacement for the ageing MX because of its small size and low weight. (Problem is, my lightweight kit usually consists of an MX and either an M-28/3.5 or M-50/1.4, neither of which will work with the *ist. I'm undoubtedly an oddball exception in the grand scheme of things!) Anyway, since the cameras appeal to a wider audience than the lenses they are bound to attract more attention, scrutiny and criticism. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
