Martin wrote: > Could you describe further what the KAF3 mount would be? > What's the difference to KAF2 (or probably the crippled KAF2)?
Not really :-). I don't have the patents at hand but I remember it maintained full compatibility (with the possible exception of power zoom) with older lenses (aperture simulator still in place). > Is there any real chance to use IS lenses for the latest *ist D's? No chance at all as the camera lack the electronics to support IS and lack KAF3 lens mount as well. If Pentax release IS and/or USM they want you to not only buy new lenses but new cameras as well. > I'm still arguing about the gone power contacts which would forbid IS lenses > for the first DSLRs, but could indicate a design decision to use in-body IS. I believe in-body IS is more likely as it will be far simpler and cheaper to employ. > I guest most people would prefer in-body IS since every other lense would > profit from it, too. For Canon I feel it was reasonable to have everything > within the dedicated lense. But otherwise the body as central part (AF > drive, IS) still is justified. If IS is to be used with film cameras theres no choice but to built it into the lenses. As long as DSLR are not full frame in-body solutions are the most likely; also because it eliminates the various optical aberations connected to lens IS systems. If full fame DSLR's represent the (reasonably) near future, then IS in lenses are the way to go for everyone. P�l
