Paul posted: > They're not stupid. They'll continue to support those products and > functions that matter. The aperture cam doesn't make a hoot of a > difference. The *istD works fine without it. But you don't know that. > You haven't tried it.
Paul, I agree with you entirely about the *ist D working fine with the fix. However, JCO says that Pentax can't be trusted to keep compatibility. The only thing wrong with THAT statement of his, in my opinion, is that he seems to be tying it firmly to the original incompatibility with the *ist D and K & M lenses, and I think he's picking the wrong evidence. I think it dates from the incompatible film bodies, which were introduced a few years ago; and then the aperture-ring-less lenses. To me, I'm not buying the lenses that are incompatible with my cameras, and I'm not buying the bodies that can't use my lenses. And those exceptions still leave more than enough gear that I can use, or that I even want, so that I'm not at all inconvenienced. I was pretty mad about the introduction of the ZX-50 and what it meant, and even more unhappy when the trend was confirmed with three more crippled cameras and the crippled lenses. But in light of the above - - I don't have to scrap my entire system, and I can't afford to anyway, and I'm not going to. ERN
