This is just too much. if these lenses are selling anywhere for anything more that ZERO than they are not obsolete. Lets see if I get that right, ALL those people buying K/M lenses on ebay just buy them because they insane and they just toss them is the garbage can when they arrive? - GET OUT OF HERE with that lame reply
I now repost your "reasons" from the last post : ================================================================= TOM REESE WROTE: 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. ================================================================= What makes all of this moot is that first, K/M lenses have some of these technologies you are implying they don't, and second, it doesn't matter what Pentax ( and apparently you ) assume if the assumption is wrong. They got so much backlash from total lack of KM support in the beginning they had to deliver an emergency bandaid patch ( green button ) just to save face over their ( and your) incorrect assumption. If these things you contend were actually true why was that even necessary? It wouldn't have been necessary, and guess what that means PENTAX AND YOU were wrong in that assumption.. "Obsolete" lenses don't sell for big bucks and companies don't put out bandaid patches for problems that don't exist. And BTW, I will assume that since you havent responded to the second item you contended which I ALSO argued was wrong, ALL WRONG means you now agree with me on thatr matter? And its not irrellavant because it shows your lack of understanding of the whole K/M support issue. We are talking about millions of lenses here. Really good and some even truly GREAT PENTAX BRAND LENESES. Probably about half of all they have ever made. And these lenses are NOT obsolete ( see my arguments above). They never were junk then and they arent junk now. There is NO SENSE in pentax abandoning THEIR OWN GOOD PRODUCTS without a good reason to do so. The only reason I can possibly think of is to sell new lenses to fool like you who think old=obsolete and new=better. These are possibilities not facts, if you equate old=obsolete and new=better in all cases you are making a huge FALSE assumption.... jco -----Original Message----- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 9:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) > I am sorry sir but you are wrong on both counts. > > What is exactly "obsolete" about K/M lenses? I just told you. You're too damned stubborn to listen. > 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. eBay prices prove nothing other than a high level of stupidity among eBay buyers. KEH has a large stockpile of M lenses that aren't selling. Adorama has used M lenses that aren't selling. > Secondly, your second ARGUMENT IS ALL WRONG. > There are no compatablity issues in supporting > K/M AE with the current mount. You don't know that. Neither do I. We have no idea what went on in the Pentax engineering spaces. We don't know what Pentax has on their drawing boards. We don't know what projects were aborted. We don't know what's been designed into their lenses and cameras. Tom Reese
