Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck in the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support lenses made in 1975.
Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do so. 1970s lenses would canabalise any new lens sales they can make now. As to the regression business obviously as far as K/M lenses the support is inferior - nobody is disagreeing with you on that score so please turn off the caps lock. Support on the new bodies is clearly not what it was iin the past. However, you must admit that the new lenses and new bodies are a step forward. The new coupling mechanism *is* an improvement over the old 1970s metal rod way of comunicating between lens and camera. It is *progress* and it will allow for the development of better things in future. A On 18/9/04 5:36 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior > way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's > OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially > when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this > regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open > aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause "pretty damn good". > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! > > > You seem <iretrevably> stuck in the past. > > In any event, nobody is saying it is a better way of operating, clearly > full K/M support wouldd be welcomed by most pentax users who have these > lenses and wish to use them. But given that is not going to happen, the > support offered at present is pretty dam good. > > A. > > > On 18/9/04 4:59 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It >> has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide >> open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily >> lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before >> every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower >> than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an >> inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and >> doing everthing wide open and on the fly. >> JCO >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! >> >> >> Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS >> taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the >> camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on >> the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed >> accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount > >> lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green > >> button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but >> good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in > >> some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. >> >> A. >> >> >> >> >> On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Your understanding is wrong. The camera is >>> forced to taking a stop down reading because >>> it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going >>> to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. >>> >>> JCO >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! >>> >>> >>> JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account >>> and set the shutter acordingly. >>> >>> A. >>> >>> On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> But to say that ignoring >>>> the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter >>>> (and never has) makes very little sense. >>> >> >
