WRONG AGAIN- When they switched from Screwmount to K mount it WAS NOT THE SAME- Why because back in early '70's the world was still heavily into prime lenses and lens changing was a big issue and the screwmounting of lenses vs bayonet mount was a big disadvantage to quick lens changing.
SO- when pentax made the jump from screwmount to k mount a major compatability with old screw lenses was lost BUT THERE WAS A BIG GAIN TO OFFSET THE LOSS- namely you now got quick changing modern bayonet lenses and bodies as a new and valuable feature. THIS DSLR K/M support abandonment is totally different because THERE IS NO NEW or valuable FEATURE to offset or even cause the loss. Even if you want to try to argue that the DSLR body is cheaper without the K/M support, how much cheaper is it? I doubt the differnece in price would even be noticed let alone considered in a purchase so any extremely tiny price reduction without the K/M support is not a valuable feature gained unless the price reduction was very signifigant and we know it couldn't be because even very cheap $125 complete cameras had it. Understand? JCO -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 9:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm Just a note, but when Pentax switched from M42 to K mount, they essentially did the same thing. All auto-aperture M42 lenses are stop-down only on K mount bodies, despite being auto-aperture on M42 bodies that supported the feature. So the current situation with the all-electronic K mount to mechanical lenses is akin to that switch 30 years ago. J. C. O'Connell wrote: >NO- I get angry when people say I don't know what I am >talking about just because I don't own the particular camera. If you don't >care fine, but don't tell me it doesn't matter if you like metered manual >because >it does. The issue goes far beyond this particular K/M support, >the issue becomes a matter of trust with pentax on everything >they sell now or in the future because this is unprecedented >with them because it the past they never did anything even remotely like >this >and now they are unreliable with regards to product support >and even very expensive well made products like their best top line K/M >lenses are being intentionally disregarded with regards to their >intended KEY BASIC features WITHOUT VALID CAUSE and without any >gain to the customer let alone any substantial gain. It's all loss.... >jco > > >
