We went thru this before. The defintion of obsolete as I recall it when discussed is way too vague. Just because an item doesn't have some later feature doesn't make it obsolete IMHO because that's like saying if your current car isnt a hybrid its obsolete because it doesn't have hybrid feature that came out later. Or even worse, if the feature that came out later is of little use like saying Pentax POWER ZOOM bodies made all those before it obsolete. Yeah right! GET IT? jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) K/M Lenses do not communicate max/minimum aperture information, allow setting aperture in 1/3 stops, communicate focal distance, communicate MTF data or communicate focal length. FA2 lenses communicate all this information, FA lenses communicate all but MTF and focal distance, A lenses give only the max/min aperture and allow setting aperture in 1/3 stops. This information is required for Matrix-metering, P-TTL flash metering and the A position is required for Program and Shutter Priority AE modes. K/M lenses are obsolete as they lack these capabilities. Doesn't make them unusable or inferior, just obsolete. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >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 > >
