If you read the original post to which I replied with this, The poster (WR) claimed that that were not interested in Supported "old" lenses and that they needed to sell new ones. My point was they did not do this in the past and there Is NO NEED to abandon K/M support at this time in order To implement something new in the mount. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:12 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux Except for the fact that the only major break in features is between K and A lenses (M lenses are K lenses, there is no mount/operation difference except on the late M 28/2.8 which features the A's linear aperture as it is an A lens with a plain K mount and aperture ring introduced only because they ran out of parts early for the original M version and weren't ready to launch the A series yet). F and FA lenses add incremental improvements to the K mount (AF and active communication between lens and body), but it's the move to linear apertures and aperture communication with the A lenses that presents the capability break. If you don't understand why these features are important to camera design, you aren't likely to understand why Pentax made the break there and not at the K/M42 split. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > And using your logic, they should have dropped "K" support > When "M" lenses came out and dropped K/M support when "A" > Lenses came out and dropped "A" lens support when "F" lenses > Came out etc etc etc. They never did this. Dropping K/M > Support completely from the lineup at almost zero cost > Saving is not good thing to happen and IMHO seriously > Lowers the trustworthiness of the company and its long > Term usuabliity of any of their products. Its like > A manufactor produced time bomb. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:44 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux > > > >>Simply logic would dictate that the more K/M lenses you own >>The more damage is done by not having full support of them. >>A single $5 part missing in the body could cause lose of functions >>To THOUSANDS of $$$ worth of lenses. That's the really stupid >>Economics of it all. > > > Stupid economics for people who have bought a bunch of old lenses. > Not so stupid for a company that is in the business of selling new > equipment, especially new lenses. > > 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
