CANON provided something new and improved in their EOS Mount that the FD could never do, PENTAX hasn't. You are arguing on both Ends of the stick and you cant do that. On one hand Youre saying abandoning Pentax is better than Canon Because they didn't make their new A/F/FA mounts Incompatible with K/M but on the other hand youre Saying its OK to abandon K/M now with the DSLRs For no reason. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:48 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: The JCO survey > Do you think that intentionally diabling lenses by > Removing a $5 part is not worse that intentioning > Disabling lenses by going to a completely new and much > Improved camera and lens mounting system? I don't. Completely abandoning an entire family of lenses for no valid technical reason is worse, yes. Canon could have made the EOS system adaptable to the EF mount, in much the same way that Pentax made the M42 mount adaptable to the K mount. Or, they could have continued making a couple of decent FD mount cameras to continue supporting the 10s of millions of legacy lenses they had sold. The demand for them was certainly out there at the time. I'm not saying the FD mount didn't need to be superceded, I am saying that Canon screwed their customer base by completely abandoning it in the process. As you said yourself: "You fail to understand the signifigance that > LENSES not bodies last forever practically and long term > Support of the lenses is of utmost importance. " How has Canon given FD lens owners from they early long term support? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
