Dead is very strong word. K & M lenses are not dead - to me - or to Pentax. I use a handful of them with my D. Since people still use them (they even sell at hight pirces some times), they are not dead to Pentax either: They are owned by potentional Pentax DSLR buyers. Pentax KNOWS this. This has got to be one of the reasons for the 1.1 firmware update for the D and for engineering the DS, DL and DS2 ot allow for "NON-A" settings. Regards
Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. september 2005 20:13 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
