I am sorry sir but you are wrong on both counts. What is exactly "obsolete" about K/M lenses? You cant just use the "old" label, you have to have solid reasons. If they were truly obsolete the would have zero market value and a quick check on ebay indicates quite the opposite.
Secondly, your second ARGUMENT IS ALL WRONG. There are no compatablity issues in supporting K/M AE with the current mount. They HAVE ALREADY made cameras that supported K/M AE and the current mount fully. Your gross oversight is that IF AND WHEN SOME NEW LENSMOUNT feature causes the NEED to abandon K/M AE lens support then it would be acceptable to consider dropping that K/M AE lens support THEN- but that hasn't happened so the K/M lenses are not causing ANY compatabilty issues whatsover NOW. What youre saying is someday the K/M might get it the way if they redesign the mount so its time to get rid of it now. DUMB. jco -----Original Message----- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 7:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) JCO wrote: > I am waiting too, where are your estimates > showing their decisions were justified? Advancing technology justified their decisions. The old lenses were obsolete. The company assumed (correctly) that almost everyone would want autofocus lenses with their new cameras. You don't put model T engines in a Ford Mustang. Lens design technology with aspherical glass, autofocus, internal focusing, non-rotating front elements etc had progressed to the point where the company didn't think it made any sense to use the old glass on the new cameras. They were right. It doesn't make any sense. There may also have been solid engineering reasons for doing so. You don't know what features are built into the modern lenses for compatibility with future cameras. Retro capability may have prevented some other feature (whether ever implemented or not) from being added. I don't know if that's true and neither do you. Only the Pentax engineers know for sure. Tom Reese
