We all KNOW he has a point. We just don't need it to be repeated ad infinitum (and with increasing levels of obscenity), by him or by you or by anybody else. We have ALL had it up to the eyeballs with this, and it is surprising to me that you are attempting to prolong the thread by your posts, and at the same time pretend weariness with the whole subject.
As I said, like JCO, you can't let it go. And if that's bullshit, in your view, so be it. John On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:22:41 -0000, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > I'm tired. I have had it up to my eyeballs with your BS. I've also had > it up to my eyeballs with JCO's. On the other hand while he may be a > one note symphony he has a valid point, that Pentax is being quite > cynical in it's advertising about backward compatibility in marketing > it's DSLRs. I, and a number of others on this list, agree with this > point, to some extent. Most of us have learned to leave him alone when > he starts to rant. The last few responses to his posts on this subject, > have been of the, "I don't need it", "it's not necessary", "it's gone, > get over it", not to mention the oh so eloquent "get lost". All of > which kind of misses the point. After watching the pig pile long > enough, when someone else, in this case me, chimes in that he has a > point, you attack them as well. Because you silence someone doesn't > make them wrong. Now you've decided to ignore the posts that have more > or less said "we don't need it". Well, I've made an offer, if you don't > need the capability of open aperture metering, I'm perfectly willing to > trade a near mint quality lens for a bargain quality one, A bargain A > 35mm f2.0 for a near mint M 35mm f2.0, to make my point. I don't need > auto focus, I'll happily manually focus my "50mm normal equivalent". I > expect no takers because the capability to meter at full aperture is > very desirable. You can't accuse me of not having used the *ist D or Ds > as I own one of each. It's a _pain_ _in_ _the_ _ass_ to switch between > lenses,that work properly (FA, F and A) and those that don't, (heck it's > a pain in the ass to switch between the D and DS but that's another > rant, which could have avoided by buying two D's, so thats my fault). > I'm not saying the K and M lenses don't work, or that when you have time > to use them they can't be rewarding, just that they are a pain in the > ass, especially when you are working fast. Having a raft load of M and > K lenses hasn't stopped me from buying new and used FA, F, and A lenses > to use with my D and DS. Not having done so would apparently disqualify > me from discussing this according to some, but in my case it doesn't. > Maybe JCO is incapable of forming a coherent thought when he's angry, > and he's easy to anger Maybe you think it's fun to bait him. Why > don't you pick on someone your own size for a change. > > With all due respect > > P. J. Alling > > John Forbes wrote: >> As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that "the aperture >> simulator is >> totally unnecessary". Almost everybody here would like to have it on a >> DSLR. Nobody is arguing against the AP; they are simply fed up with a >> million posts reiterating the same old argument. >> >> But, like JCO, you seem unable to grasp that fact. >> >> John >> >> >> >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:29:08 -0000, P. J. Alling >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Just as an aside, to anyone who thinks the aperture simulator is >>> totally unnecessary. I'd love to trade my nearly mint M-35mm f2.0 for >>> the equivalent A lens in bargain condition. Any takers? I though not. >>> >>> John Whittingham wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic >>>>> says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens >>>>> aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the >>>>> least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a >>>>> significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to >>>>> incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure >>>>> would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks >>>> Rob. >>>> >>>> Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses >>>> K >>>> & M >>>> (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I >>>> think not >>>> >>>> I've more K, M & A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still >>>> bought FA >>>> primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- >>>> 24..........oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever >>>> Pentax >>>> decide to label it in the future. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> ---------- Original Message ----------- >>>> From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >>>> Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 >>>> Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 25/11/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per >>>>>> unit >>>>>> that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal >>>>>> marketplace, >>>>>> that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase >>>>>> to >>>>>> the end user of the equipment. >>>>>> The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind >>>>>> of >>>>>> cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is >>>>>> selling at the moment. >>>>>> Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as >>>>>> having >>>>>> a lower end user price would. >>>>>> Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at >>>>>> best. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic >>>>> says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens >>>>> aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the >>>>> least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a >>>>> significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to >>>>> incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure >>>>> would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Rob Studdert >>>>> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >>>>> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >>>>> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >>>>> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom >>>>> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >>>>> material. If you have received an email in error please notify >>>>> Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it >>>>> from your systems. >>>>> >>>>> Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email >>>>> attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be >>>>> free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. >>>>> >>>>> Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for >>>>> inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for >>>>> the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not >>>>> necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be >>>>> held >>>>> responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a >>>>> message. >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------ >>>> ------- End of Original Message ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it >>>> is addressed and may contain >>>> confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email >>>> in error please notify Carmel College >>>> on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. >>>> >>>> Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email >>>> attachments for viruses we cannot >>>> guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any >>>> responsibility for viruses. >>>> >>>> Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for >>>> inappropriate content, the college cannot >>>> be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. >>>> The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and >>>> Carmel College cannot be held >>>> responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a >>>> message. >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
