see my last post, engineering dollars? that cam sensor was engineered 35 years ago dude. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Its ONE pot with three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? That's freakin' childs play.
Don't you understand that NOT ALL PENTAX USERS/BUYERS were born yesterday? for someone who has spent thousands of dollars on extremely well made ( long lasting ) lenses to be screwed out of their main functions because of a $5 part removal on a $600 and up camera is beyond absurd. Its not like the removal was necessary, that might be understandable if it was in the way of some new feature of the mount but THERE IS NOTHING preventing the $5 part from being maintained in the design to support these fine lenses... Is that a solid enoght reason for you? You must not have had the pleasure of owning and using these K/M lenses and are playing some selfish game where you think your $5 savings is more important than continued support of perfectly working excellently designed and manufactured lenses costing much more than the entire body let alone the $5 part needed to support them fully. And another thing, are you actully trying to suggest its OK to drop support of older well made expensive lenses for no reason just because the competition which is using totally different gear and has totally different compatibility issues did? JCO -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rename request Well, the truth may be what you behold, but it ain't necessarily what we behold. the fatc remains you've yet to post a single solid reason beyond the wishes of a few users as to why Pentax should spend engineering dollars to include a feature desired by a fraction of their potential market, especially when they already offer more in this regards than their competition. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >For your information it was the spotmatic list >and the moderator admitted that he really had >no reason to kick me whatsoever, its just >that due to the incredible amount of blatantly wrong >posts and misconceptions by the posters there who >didn't like being told the truth constantly >by me and they felt I was a problem for them, I guess >I was because they must have been quite embarassed >by some of the things they found out were all wrong, >but I had to comment because some things were >actual purchase recommendations - VERY BAD WRONG recommendations that >needed to be set straight.... > >I suggest you contact the moderater and question >HIS actions , not mine because the moderator >was also involved in the wrong end of some of >the discussions. Now do you get it? >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:40 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Rename request > > >he dropped out of the Nak Talk mailing list too, whether willingly or >not, >because of the same things. > >Herb... >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:35 PM >Subject: Re: Rename request > > > > >>Brian, >> >>JCO was on the Yahoo Pentax Screwmount Lens list until last week. It's >>a moderated list and the moderator threw him off for repeating similar >>behavior to what he exhibits here. Obviously, he needed a place to >>go, so we got him. Perhaps if we all wrote to the other list >>moderator, they would take him back? >> >>
