----- Original Message ----- From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>> > Eh... I'm sure you're right. While I don't agree with JCO's > flaming-style "debating," I do agree with most of the points: > > - Canon FD/EOS comparisons aren't relevant because the new mount > REQUIRED > depricating the old one. The K-mount can easily allow for everything > at > the same time. Johns arguement is, by his own admission, based on support for old equipment. Canon had to change mounts, but anyone who bought new FD glass just before the EOS system was introduced could not buy a new camera body from anyone that would support their glass within a couple of years. Canon plain and simply bailed on that user base. > - Arguing speculative dollar figures is pointless... nobody knows the > true > numbers. BUT, very cheap film cameras were sold for a very long time > with > these couplers in them... so they are not expensive to make if in the > design to begin with. > - The most disconcerting thing is quiet resignation of most folks on > the > PDML. "Even though I'd love to see it, it's not happening, and that's > just the way it's gonna be." Unified customer feedback is the best > way of > reviving this (technically trivial) part of the classic K-mount. > Some people say it is trivial, logic dictates that if it was trivial, then the feature would not have been dropped. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
