This is exactly what I mean by backwards capability. For a long time I could use any k mount lens on any k mount body. The introduction of teh crippled k mount stoped me using older lenses on new bodies without significant compromises in metering capability.
Now the introduction of these new lenses tailored for the smaller ccd sensor means that if I buy the new Pentax DA 80 -200 f/2.8 or whatever killer lens gets launched, then I can only use it on digital Pentax bodies and can't put it on my LX or MZ-S and get acceptable results. This gives me 3 choices:- Stick with my existing film based system and forget about digital because most of my current lenses won't work on a digital body and any new DA lenses won't work on my film based cameras. Buy a second digital Pentax system to go along with my currrent stuff and accept the compatability issues, so I can only use some lenses with some bodies. Sell all the Pentax stuff and start again. I'm not particularly happy with any of the choices. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Introducing the remarkable new Pentax *Ist D > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Jordan" > Subject: Re: Introducing the remarkable new Pentax *Ist D > > > > It says in the press release, "The image circle in the DA-series lenses is > > designed to perfectly match the size of the CCD (23.5mm x 15.7mm) > > incorporated in PENTAX's digital SLRs, optimizing the performance of these > > cameras." > > > > My reading of that means that the image circle will be smaler than the > > dimensions of 35mm film, meaning that they can't be used on film bodies. > > > > Am I missing something here or is this the end of backwards compatibility? > > It means that the DA lenses won't be usable on film cameras, unless you > don't mind some vignetting. > In some respects, it makes sense to have lenses specifically for the digital > format, in others it doesn't. From a design POV, they can make quality > lenses cheaper for the smaller image circle, since it is easier to make a > good lens with a smaller circle. > Thats why lenses like the FA77mm only cost a thousand dollars, while a > Rodenstock 210mm of similar quality for 4x5 costs a few grand. > I can't see the lenses being any smaller, since they are still K mount > lenses, and there are size restrictions based on that. > > William Robb >
