The K/M lens line has been dead for 20 years (As it was replaced by KA
lenses 20 years ago). Yeah, a lot are still in use, but you can say the
same for M42 lenses as well.
It's not like Pentax is obsoleting their currently manufactured lenses
like Nikon did (Yup, Nikon still makes AI lenses, and introduced their
first crippled camera back when AI bodies were still current).
The *ist and *ist D are substantially similar cameras, differing mostly
in the frame. Most of the controls, metering, AF unit, shutter and lens
mount are all common between them.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
You're talking in circles, your argument was that the K/M lens line
was dead for 20 years not you argue from current offerings. It's not
worth it. The *ist-D is a different camera, which in some ways
replicates the features in the *ist but unlike the MZ series or what
would have been the MZ-S/MZ-D twins they are substantially differnt
from each other physically.
Adam Maas wrote:
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
