On Sep 21, 2005, at 9:36 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Not to say its unimportant to you because you are the one doing it, but I don't understand WHY its important to you. what are you doing with this EXIF data that you find the lack of with KM lenses frustrating or pain in the neck?
What I'm doing with EXIF data in my images is my business. Sorry to not be forthcoming about it.
Secondly, anyone who doesn't own K/M lenses or want to ever own K/M lenses shouldn't comment because of course this doesn't matter to you, its not your fine PENTAX product getting disabled without cause.
I own and use a Pentax-M 85/2, which I find an excellent lens. Pentax' modern equivalent is the FA77/1.8, which I'll probably purchase when I can justify the expense (it's not a focal length I use very often). I find the M85/2 works very nicely on the DS and I'm satisfied with the body's support of it for metering and focusing.
The M85 was one of four K/M-series Pentax lenses I purchased, all rated in BARGAIN to EXCELLENT condition. All of them needed service in one way or another, the other three I decided weren't worth the trouble. That was even before I realized fully that the EXIF data was not populated with several important parameters (January-February). But I think the repair statistics are telling: I've purchased a total of 28 Pentax lenses since the beginning of the year, 7 new and 21 used, 4 of which were K/M series. All of the K/M series lenses needed repair, only two of the A series lenses needed repair. K/M lenses are very old; they are not worth the money for me to repair them to the spec I need/want.
Enough. There really is no end to this for you, is there JCO? This is my last post on these threads, and certainly my last response to you specifically. When I post to the mailing list in the future, please discard the email without reading it. I will not mention you or imply any reference to anything you've said, regardless of its nature. You have my word on that.
Godfrey
