I would also like to mention here that I havent NOT bought the istD cameras solely because of the K/M issue. I am currently not really that interested in a 6MP APS SLR for my hobby photography ( I have been doing more & more LF film lately) but I still might buy one of these anyway if nothing more than an easy tool to test and compare my large stable of K and screw lenses quicky and consistantly. At the current $600 price which is pretty damn cheap its almost worth it for me for that ability alone, any actual casual photography I would do with it would be secondary in terms of why I would buy it in the first place.... I just want to say that because if & when I do get one I don't want anybody trying to say "I told you so" at some later date. The general product support issue is still huge dark mark against pentax in my opinion though...
So now I will ask a question, is the resolution of the istD series cameras high enough to tell the difference between an excellent and a slightly better truly exception lens In the APS region it covers? Or does at some point the resolution become "camera limited" and two lenses both outstanding but slightly different performance become "one" and these differences are not resolved at all as they clearly would be on film grained BW film? JCO -----Original Message----- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Pentax K 2.5/200mm Hi JCO, My take on this, considering the way it happened is this: 1.) The support was considered un-needed because they thought purchasers of a DSLR would have or want updated optics too. AND, of course they wanted to maintain a market for newer glass. Profit = Survival. 2.) There was enough of an outcry that they added partial support later in software. 3.) The outcry wasn't strong enough to overcome their desire to sell more newer glass. So full support was ruled out (at least for now). The conlusion is that those of us who would like full K/M support, such as myself, need to holler louder, and at Pentax, where it might just matter. I have e-mailed AND written to them about this, it will take a lot more of us, considering their apparent success with the DS, to get results. As it is, now that I'm used to the darn Green Button, I'm glad I bought the D. I almost didn't because of this very issue. BTW: Would someone PLEASE buy JCO's lovely SMCP-xxxmm/f:xx lens from eekBay so I can stop drooling!! (Damn eekBay rule!) Don > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Pentax K 2.5/200mm > > > hi, > > I think my position on the this matter needs clarifying. > The reason I am so "passionate" about this matter and discussion is > because it goes WAY beyond a particular metering mode with K/M lenses > on an *ist D. > > My "desire" is not simplely K/M support of lenses on particualar > bodies, my desire is to be able to trust Pentax like they were trusted > for the last 40 years. > > This issue is somewhat clouded by terms used. > To me the K/M lenses not being able to open > apeture metering or open aperture AE on the > current DSLRS is NOT a compatibiliy problem > it's a SUPPORT issue. > > Non-Compatability means something new cant be made > to work with something old easily, reliably, or cheaply enough. > Support means something old just isnt supported. There is nothing new > with istD mount that's incompatible with the old, the old just isnt > supported. That's the issue with the K/M lenses on istD. What makes it > worse is the support would still be EASY, CHEAP, and RELIABLE. > > Its not so much what they have done in this one incident > as it is what they might do in the future. This is > because Pentax never did anything like this > with any of their products before as they always > supported older lenses fully until some NEW CHANGE > prevented it. There is no new change to the lens > mount to necessitate the lack of support of the K/M so > this is a major turning point in Pentax customer > support policy in my opinion. That is far more > important to me than a metering mode or given > lens because what it means is a downgrade for > PENTAX as a company as well as their products > long term futures... > > Now you know why I get so riled up over this one... > It's a BAD milestone for Pentax in my opinion. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm > > > As I've been reading this thread I'm thinking to myself, "J.C.O., you > certainly are PASSIONATE about this". > > I appreciate your desire to see full K & M lens support, but frankly > I'm less interested in a lenses ability to communicate with the > cameras meter than I am in it's optical performance. As you've said > there are many fine K & M lenses out there, but the thing is they > still take good pictures. The way your carrying on it's as if these > lens are now incapable of taking decent photographs. > > The "green" & AE button stop down metering solution is in no way > perfect, but it does work. And the thing is, even with the loss of > meter sensitivity caused by stop down metering, with digital, you can > check the exposure results. And if they're off, make adjustments > accordingly. Hell I do this with my A & FA lenses all the time. > > Now I ask you. Have you actually taken a D/DS fitted with a K or M > lens fitted and tried it out in the field, gone back to your computer > and looked at the results? > > Your blowing this lack of full compatibility out of proportion. The > lenses still gather light & they still render an image FULL STOP > > It could be worse. Pentax could have completely redesigned the lens > mount. > > Dave > > On 9/18/05, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > too bad pentax has yet to make a DSLR to fully support them. There > > were/are some really nice K/M lenses that arent getting the digital > > bodies they deserve. We need a higher resolution body with full K/M > > mount lens support and full frame wouldn't hurt either IMHO. Its > > really sad too because it would only take one really good body to > > take advantage of dozens of really great K/M lenses.... > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Wrom: REXCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIV > > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm > > > > > > i have K200/2.5 and K135/2.5 and consider them some of the very best > > lenses. definitely way above average. > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > On 9/17/05, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not very long ago, someone posted a very nice shot (brown/yellow > > > > leaves) made with this lens. About the same time someone posted > > > > a messaage saying a lens like this was auctioned for a rather > > > > large price. I guess we were making jokes about the > > > > "unfortunate" buyer. What is it with this lens? Is it good, bad > > > > or average? I thought "the leaves" looked excellent! > > > > > > 1. I once had an A* 200/2.8 and a K 200/2.5 at the same time (I > > > had the A* 200/2.8 first and I stumbled into a mint K 200/2.5 > > > later on). I sold the > > > A* 200/2.8. I kept the K 200/2.5. > > > > > > 2. The K 200/2.5 is one of only two Pentax SMC K (pre-A) lenses > > > (the other being the sweet SMC K 135/2.5) that I plan on keeping > > > for use, along with a bunch of A lenses and a few F and FA lenses, > > > on my new DS. > > > > > > 3. The above three lenses (K 135/2.5, K 200/2.5, and A* 200/2.8) > > > are the only three Pentax lenses that have the exact same basic > > > optical design (according to lens element diagrams). It was an > > > excellent design. > > > > > > I'd say that the "unfortunate" buyer would have been "unfortunate" > > > only if he/she paid far too much for the lens or if the lens was > > > defective. In any event, ~I~ consider myself very ~fortunate~ to > > > have a K 200/2.5. It's a superb lens. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dave >
