I think Pentax has shown odd or inconsistante policies for camera settings:
The MZ-S does not allow for setting the aperture from the camera body, only on the lens. Pentax ist, *ist D and *ist Ds (the ist series) do not support setting the aperture on the lens. Because these bodies do not have an aperture simulator. It's not that Pentax do not support K & M lenses. They do in a way. The problem as I see it, is that Pentax "ist-series" doesn't support AE when setting the aperure on the lens. That actually goes for A, and FA lenses too! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. september 2004 10:24 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: istDs - what a great camera! On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses. Yes, but that's not what I was responding to or saying I agree with. Just read below, since you are quoting. > that opinions based on pure speculation are not valid. You have to > shoot with it for a week or two, then decide. Again, I never questioned that. I did some sniping below so you can see what my point is. Who had noticed that the MZ-60 does not work even with A-series lenses? Pentax *went of their way* to disable the use of these lenses. Where does this stop? Kostas > >> On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> You guys don't seem to understand the implication of > >>>>> abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no > >>>>> one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason > >>>>> to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted > >>>>> to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide > >>>>> whatever > >>>>> they want to do on anything. > >>>> > >>>> That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels > >>>> that > >>>> way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. > >>> > >>> No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few > >>> inaccuracies > >>> in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I > >>> understand > >>> what they did with the MZ-60. > >>> > >>> I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to > >>> recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which > >>> is why I am nor saying "to buy"). I am not keen to recommend even the > >>> *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when > >>> they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I > >>> was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin > >>> as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried > >>> about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any > >>> manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) > >>> irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of > >>> principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but > >>> feel > >>> that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant future. > >>> > >>> Kostas > >>> > >> > > >
