Peter,
My use of the word "rubbish" was intemperate, and I apologise.
Although I replied to your post, I wasn't meaning to single you out. I was aiming at all those who argue so vehemently against using the "Green Button"; many of whom haven't even tried it.
I have to say that I thought it was a great shame that Pentax did not provide any proper support for K/M lenses when the *ist D first came out. However, the "Green Button" solution works for me, and for many others.
When manufacturing anything, there are a million decisions to be made on what to put in and what to leave out. The fact that "it's only $10.00" is not a good argument in itself, because if you go down that road, there are dozens of other things that are "only $10.00" and soon you've got a $5,000 camera.
John
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:56:58 -0400, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes your perfectly right your post is rubbish, and a not to the point. The moderator would kick you out of the debate.
John Forbes wrote:
What rubbish.
How long do you want Pentax to keep supporting a product which is now almost 30 years old? There IS a cost to it, and for most people, there is no benefit. For those who want to use K and M lenses, the green button solution is perfectly adequate. If you want something better, for God's sake buy a newer lens.
Yes, you're right there is a cost to it, Pentax loses faith with their users a little at a time and soon they are just like Canon with inferior technology, (or at least the appearance of the same), which will have the same result. I cannot for the most part duplicate my lenses from the current Pentax line,. so I'm not buying from them anyway.
And for your information I own a number of newer lenses. Some are very good.
Are you still wearing the clothes you bought 30 years ago?
No I couldn't wear those cloths they no longer fit and probably would have worn out, unlike quality built lenses, but a couple of years ago some of the clothes came back into style.
Driving the same car?
The car I'm driving is 11 years old, I can't afford my dream car so I see no reason do replace the one I have as long as it's serviceable.
I wish I was driving the car I had 30 years ago, it was a really neat sports car, if it were in good shape it would be worth considerably more than I paid for it..
Using the same music system?
Some of it. It's funny but my audio gear which is for the most part 20+ years old is easily compatible enough with my brand new CD and DVD players.
Calculating with a pencil?
I find it often convenient to use a pencil, (although my 20 year old HP calculator still works fine, and as a calculator has yet to be surpassed in the tasks it preforms).
Typing on a type-writer?
Actually for some of the things I do, I have to use a typewriter, a word processor just doesn't cut it. (Mine is an old Royal manual, I don't have to use it much so I put up with it).
Using pigeons instead of a mobile phone?
Really stupid analogy here, why even bother...
I don't think so.
As you can see you were mostly wrong.
You've had a damn good ride. Please don't put up the cost of my camera because you insist on using ancient glass on yours.
See my first comment if you really care.
John
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
