Umm, the *ist is Pentax's current high-spec body (Since the MZ-S can't
be found anywhere on Pentax's sites as a current body). In fact the only
currently listed body on pentaximaging.com that doesn't have the
crippled mount is the MZ-M, the lowliest body Pentax makes, on pentax.ca
there' also the MZ-6, which is a mid-range body and down-spec from the
*ist. Considering that the *istD is just a digital version of the *ist,
it's only a top of the line body if the film *ist is, much as I like
mine, it's no MZ-S.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
Why don't you actually read someone else's post before you reply.
Those were bottom feeder camera bodies. JCO is talking about top of
the line bodies. So what if Pentax sold a few entry level bodies that
lost full compatibility, a majority of the people who bought them were
never going to use anything other than the kit lens, at least they
offered a body below and several above those in their line that had
full K/M support. Now there's a grand total of 1 maybe 2, and those
of us who use digital are SOL in that regard. When you consider that
there is a distinct lack of new lenses in the Pentax line that are
available, unless you want to wait and wait, or that many of the
finest lenses that Pentax manufactured are still magnificent even on a
digital body, it is more than annoying.
You obviously don't know crap about manufacturing if you think any pot
and calibrating spring is expensive. Even if the highest quality part
is an order of magnitude more costly than the lowest quality, it ain't
expensive except by comparison.
Adam Maas wrote:
The film *ist, MZ-60 and MZ-50 all share the same 'crippled' KAF
mount as the DSLR's. The MZ-60 won't even release the shutter with
K/M lenses attached. Neither the *ist or MZ-50 offer any more
compatibility with K/M lenses than the *ist D did before the Green
Button firmware was released (1.10), whihc means that the only usable
shooting mode on them with K/M lenses is Av mode with the lens wide
open. They're significantly more crippled with these lenses than
Digital bodies are. Considering that 50% or more of the current line
of Pentax SLR's are crippled this way (Different Pentax sites differ
on whether the MZ-6 is a current product, and it's the only AF SLR in
the line without a crippled mount, the MZ-M is the only model I can
verify is both current and includes an uncrippled mount) I'd be
complaining much more about the film bodies athn the digital,
especially when the digitals offer a slightly inconvenient workaround
to the film bodies lack of workaround.
As to the 'cheap pot and a single A/D channel', well that's a heck of
a lot more expensive than the single electrical contact and data
channel that's already being used for other stuff. And there's a fair
bit of precision necessary, so it's an expensive pot and calibrated
spring, not a cheap one.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
See my last post, your entire second paragraph is
WRONG because these are NOT expensive mechanical
couplings ( even bottom line cameras like K1000/P3
has it) it's a super simple dirt cheap pot, spring, and and a single
A/D channel. you know what that
costs nowadays? Virtually nothing compared to the many
other extremely complex and expensive parts and engineering in the
DSLR. I
am not
saying it wouldn't add ANY cost to the body
but there is something called "VALUE ADDED TO CUSTOMER"
in engineering and production. The VALUE ADDED TO CUSTOMER
to the body by incorporating this virtually
no cost item is HUGE compared to the TINY TINY cost of
adding it and it should be done ON AT LEAST ONE
OF THE DSLR BODIES in my opinion.
Secondly, your last comment makes no sense to me because
the film bodies with AE don't need a green button,
with AE and AE lock you already have something better than green
button because its like the green
button is being continously done for you all the
time so why would you want that on those bodies?
JCO
