Eos INTRO 20 yrs ago, there were no digital cameras In sight at that time. Expecting Canon to make now A digital FD body is a little ridiculous isnt it? Its like asking pentax to make a M42 screwmount DSLR.
Jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: The JCO survey > There is one HUGE difference, when Canon introduced > EOS lenses and bodies, there were already millions > Of FD bodies in the field and even sold new FD bodies > For a while after, including nice ones like the T90 > So canon FD users had their "last call". Whereas pentax hasn't even > changed their Mount and there are zero pentax digital bodies in > The field that do support K/M fully at all. Pentax should > Give a "last call" for K/M users with at least one DSLR > Body that supports them fully. Last time I checked, there were zero DSLR bodies that supported the very fine quality FD glass Pentax has never made a DSLR which included an aperture simulator. When they introduced the istD, there were already millions of film bodies in the field that fully supported K/M Their last call was, like Canon, with a film body. Canon discontinued the nice FD bodies within months of the launch of the EOS, and they didn't give any warning about it, so that if a person wanted an extra body or two to take them into the future, they were screwed. What really pissed off the Canon owners that I know was that Canon left them with bags of excellent lenses, and no way to buy a new camera to shoot with. Support of lenses is most important. You said it, why don't you understand it? 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
