WRONG- The K/M series lenses have been supported on every top line pentax film camera since it came out in 1975. It hasn't been "dead" for 20 years because EVERY change Pentax made to its lens and body lensmounts since the K/M series ( K>M>A>F,etc.) specifically DID NOT involve any changes or loss of functionality of the previous generations on new bodies. This lack of support has nothing to due with compatibility of the lenses at all, its pure decision to just not support feature that still easily can be supported.
As far as the loss goes, you don't seem to understand what I am saying, LACK OF OPEN APERURE METERING and AE with K/M lenses ** IS THE MAJOR LOSS *** . There is nothing gained whatsoever by doing this. It not like there is some new great lens feature that caused this, there is nothing. This is all loss, no gain. I could agree that its not a big loss if these features were some weird things that nobody does anymore but open aperture metering and AE are still offered on all new lenses arent they? So there is no arugument that supporing these features doesn't matter or these features wouldn't be in the new lenses would they?? ( cost savings could be achieved by removing them ). I am not saying every camera body should have the feature but at least one or the few top models should have the feature as an option and there isnt one at the moment. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm There's no major loss here either, other than the full compatibility of a lense line that's been dead for 20 years. Not much of a doifference between that compatibility and the compatibility of a lens line that's been dead for 30 years. Listen, I use the D, I mostly use K/M lenses on it, I'm not missing this functionality much. The arguement is a tempest in a teapot, especially considering that Pentax abandoned the compatibility in 1997 with the MZ-50, 6 years before the DSLR's came out. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >WRONG AGAIN- > >When they switched from Screwmount to K mount >it WAS NOT THE SAME- Why because back in early >'70's the world was still heavily into prime lenses >and lens changing was a big issue and the screwmounting >of lenses vs bayonet mount was a big disadvantage >to quick lens changing. > >SO- when pentax made the jump from screwmount to >k mount a major compatability with old screw lenses >was lost BUT THERE WAS A BIG GAIN TO OFFSET THE LOSS- >namely you now got quick changing modern bayonet >lenses and bodies as a new and valuable feature. > >THIS DSLR K/M support abandonment is totally different because THERE IS >NO NEW or valuable FEATURE to offset or even cause the loss. Even if >you want to try to argue that the DSLR body is cheaper without the K/M >support, how much cheaper is it? I doubt the differnece in price would >even be noticed let alone considered in a purchase so any extremely >tiny price reduction without the K/M support is not a valuable feature >gained unless the price reduction was very signifigant and we know it >couldn't be because even very cheap $125 complete cameras had it. > >Understand? >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 9:49 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm > > >Just a note, but when Pentax switched from M42 to K mount, they >essentially did the same thing. All auto-aperture M42 lenses are >stop-down only on K mount bodies, despite being auto-aperture on M42 >bodies that supported the feature. So the current situation with the >all-electronic K mount to mechanical lenses is akin to that switch 30 >years ago. > > >
