Shel, I wasn't complaining by any stretch! I don't know what portion of my message you interpreted as such. I was simply making a logical connection that I hadn't seen discussed on PDML.
As for the SSM, that was based on the speculation that has been circulating the list for some time. Aside from you, has anyone denied the presence of that? Also, Pentax must have a good reason for replacing the fairly recent 16-45/4 lens with a 16-50/2.8 (aside from the minor aperture and focal length differences). Don't you think? Mike (sent again, because I think my mail server didn't get the first one out) On 9/12/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Y'gotta start somewhere. > > You've won the prize for being the first person to complain about the new > camera. I wondered how long it would take before complaints and criticisms > started. > > What makes you think the upcoming 16-50/2.8 will have a "super-sonic motor" > - I don't recall seeing that announced anywhere? > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Mike Hamilton > > > What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed > > lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one) > > will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens, > > given the super-sonic motor and fast aperture... Perhaps Pentax's > > most expensive zoom? Pentax has typically produced high priced primes > > (A* and FA*, FA Limiteds), but not really the expensive zooms (barr > > the 24-90 and a couple of FA* zooms). > > > > Is my reasoning correct? > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- -- Remember to Breathe -- MichaelHamilton.ca -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
