On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Kostas, > > What exactly in my emails is inaccurate?
Please read on. On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > They have never done anything like this before so the sky is > the limit for them now..... Why are you complaining now? They have been at it since the MZ-50. The MZ-30 was a step back, but The People found a way to use pre-A lenses (with limitations). When they produced the MZ-60 they made things even worse (no pre-F lenses usable). They did this so well that I had not seen a single mention of that in the list until last week. I downloaded the manual from pentaxusa last week and could not believe my eyes. Perhaps I should read it again. By the way, if Pentax thought I would buy new lenses to go with the -50, try again. I bought another body. Only no decent mid-range body was available new, so I bought used. 2 years on, I have 20-odd lenses, 3 of which are AF; I have even sold the FA28-80 that came with the -50. > They were ONCE one of the best brands > for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in > the process ( A, and F lenses for example). They still are. Look at the new macro lenses and the fact that (like it or not) K and M lenses can be used in some sort of aperture priority straightforwardly. I understand what you are saying, but your point is too fine for me (and I use Av extensively). As far as I am concerned, I can use put the camera in a mode where *I* decide about the aperture and *the camera* decides about the shutter speed. Sure, if I forget to flick the green button there will be a problem (if the light has changed). I take Paul's opinion that it's so easy that one gets to do it more often than necessary; I do that with the -5n's DOF-preview all the time, it's a mannerism. I am not too sure about the situation with the Ds, but I will wait and see. > I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, > that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their > rivals. The reason why the camera is expensive is to do with the fact that Pentax cannot afford to sell is as a loss leader. It's a matter of magnitude. Finally, you have convinced me that there is no financial issue as much as others have convinced me that there is: not at all. My data (MZ-shambles) imply that Pentax are shafting us on purpose, but the fact that we are on the same side of the fence is coincidence. If you have the money and the urge to go digital, seek a shop that will let you play with it or ask for a volunteer in the list to spend an afternoon with you and his *ist-D. I am convinced that if you see past purism, and if you consider your options, you will like the camera. However, just like you, I would like Pentax to come up with a replacement to the *ist-D featuring the bloody lever. Sure, people will come up with "dream on" statements, I don't care. If they want to phase them out, let them support the dual interface of the Z1-p, sell crappy lenses without the ring and good ones with it, and let nature take its course. Oh, and no more 60mm equiv crap please, if there was a point in this focal length, Pentax would have one in their line already. It's not like we are swamped with available lenses or anything. Kostas
