----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D
> Stop making excuses for Pentax just because you bought one. You obviously > dont own or want to own and use many of the fine K/M lenses they > made or you wouldnt be so quick to accept this GLARING lack of > BASIC features with use of K/M lenses....It sucks and was unnecessary. > the proof is in the film SLRS that did it. PENTAX mgmt. has become jerks > with this "decision"..... >From one of my postings, Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:41 PM: "I was looking at my lens fleet with the news that the Asterist D will have a hobbled mount. Suddenly, my longest lens is 100mm, my 150, 200, 300, 400 and 500mm optics would need to be replaced to use these focal lengths on the new camera. So, rather than buying just a camera body, I would have to buy several thousands of dollars worth of glass as well. Sorry, Pentax, but you don't get my digital money until I get full mount compatability. However, I am willing to pay a fair amount to get it." >From another, later that day, or perhaps earlier: It makes sense to want to use the most modern cameras that the manufacturer produses, within the limitations of the lenses in your fleet. It does not make sense to go out and buy several new lenses every time the manufacturer introduces a new camera body line. This is the reason for system compatability. Nikon has managed it in their top end film cameras, though not in their digital SLRs, which I expect annoys a few people using Nikon. I can understand them dropping it for the low end cameras where the market won't be concerned (for example, I wouldn't buy an Asterist because it is a cheap piece of junk, not because of system incompatability. I am not in that camera's market), but in the high end cameras, where the target market can be assumed to be somewhat more advanced, compatability becomes an issue. The Asterist D will be a high end camera, based on price and target market (if the thing actually makes it to market). High end consumers have a different set of expectations, system compatability being one of them. I would not be upset to pay a premium to get system compatability out of the camera body, I would be upset to have to replace a half dozen or more expensive lenses to use the new body, especially if it is the top end one, and no other choice exists in the line up. If Pentax chooses to drop system compatability in their digital SLR, and if I decide that I need (want) to go to a digital SLR, then I would be looking at a manufacturer with full system compatability. Right now, that means Canon. Since I cannot afford or desire two complete small format systems, I would be dumping Pentax in favour of Canon. Hopefully, the version two digital SLR will offer backwards compatability, as that will make me (and a lot of other advanced photographers) much happier by allowing us to stay with equipment we already own, rather than forcing us into another camera system." Don't call me a Pentax apologist, just because I decided once I got the camera in my hands that I had no issues with non compatability with 2 decade old glass. What I am is someone who has decided that it is a specious arguement. The camera stands up very well on it's own. I can use any lens Pentax has ever made on it. > > 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > > > > Canon forgot about completely when they introduced the EOS mount. > 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > > They upgraded the entire mount to go AF. Something > was gained. Nothing is gained in Pentax abandoning > the K/M features. There is no new lens mount or > improvements causing this loss of features.. If nothing else, they stand to sell a bunch of new lenses, which is something they wouldn't do with all the cheap prick users out there who haven't bough a new piece of equipment in 20 years. All manufacturing companies are in the business of selling new product. it's how they stay in business. They invent stuff. They build that stuff. And they sell that stuff. When a product is resold by the end user, the person who buys it second hand is not a customer of the manufacturer. They are just a buyer of a used piece of equipment. At some point, a company is going to forget about pleasing the buyers of that equipment. At some point the public relations value of supporting cheap pricks who won't buy new is offset by the PITA value of continuing with outmoded manufacturing practices. > SLRs are camera systems, if it cant support my many fine K/M lenses the way > they were designed, it is of little use to me as it is..... Those fine K/M lenses were designed to be supported by film cameras, so really, you don't have anything to complain about with the lack of support from the digital camera. If they stop supporting the mount with film cameras, you might have something legitimate to bitch about, but for now, by your own criteria.... you don't. William Robb
