Yes, not fully supporting 30 year old lenses by removing a $5 part that's unecessary for newer lenses is so MUCH worse than not supporting brand new lenses by utterly changing the mount so multi-thousand dollar lenses bought a couple months before aren't supported at all and the cameras that do support them are no longer available if you want more than an AE-only cheapo body. Especially when the new system has an extremely limited lens line and no pro body.
-Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > You are an asshole. You cannot be serious if you think > What canon did was worse because it wasn't. Not supporting > Lenses by removing a $5 part is far far worse than anything > Canon has ever done. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:16 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > >> Its unethical to disable legacy products without >> Good cause and there isnt anything cost or technically >> Or new improvements causing it. You cant say its better for them to >> Screw prior customers to sell new lenses they wouldn't >> Need if they supported them fully. I wont condone it. >> I would rather switch brands then do that. Canon is >> >From what I can see the best brand to start from scratch with. >> And if you have to buy new lenses just for this disabling camera, >> Then you are essentially starting from scratch arent you? > > We'll just conveniently forget that Canon did a much more henious thing > to their legacy products customers when we buy from a company whose > actions we don't condone, right? > > William Robb > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
