> Nikon did it and produced FM3A which hasn't sold that well. Why would Pentax > risk it? Besides, what if I tell you LIMITED lenses were built nowhere near > the same mechanical quality as M or earlier lenses? (I am serious) I know > they are metal, but really, I bet they can't take the same amount of abuse > as good old metal lenses. In fact, I even think FA* lenses could withstand a > lot more abuse than the LIMITEDs.
Not owning a LTD, I'll believe that this could be true. It sounds, though, as if you haven't actually experienced their lifespan durability yourself. A lens may feel cheesy (and that does matter, in a way) and yet not fall apart. A lot of Nikon guys whail that the AF lenses aren't of the same build quality as the old MF ones, but my nikon MFs were in and out of the shop all the time and I have yet to send an AF nikkor in for repairs. The FA* might well be better because they are "pro" spec and are built pro-tough. I did not find ruggedness a feature of any of the A* lenses except the big 300. > Regards, > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >Would it be impossible to build an AF SLR with some mechanical shutter > >speeds? Mechanical aperture readout? Manual film rewind? The Nikon FM3A is not an AF camera. The big news was that it was capable of autoEXPOSURE, which the FM and FM2 were not. High Tech match-needle metering! I don't know if the FM3A is EXPECTED to sell all that well. It's a niche camera, made for the Nikon version of the guys who love MXen. It is also rather expensive due to the demands of manufacturing it, and there are a lot of FM2s on the used market these days. I'd consider myself in the potential market for an FM3A and I don't have one. I HAVE considered a pair of FM2Ns. DJE
