Hi Roland, Do you remember the time about three weeks? Pentax had said "full compatibility" for the *ist, and everyone was talking about how his personal Pentax sources were confirming that. Pentax-Europe's marketing director had confirmed it, and I was still not believing it because it was not fitting together with several technical observations of mine.
It turned out that they were all wrong. I see how passionate you are about this, and I respect your choice. However, I do not share your optimism, and I have some technical reasons in my head. > But the *ist D will have full compatibility with the older lenses. This we have only seen on paper, just like we saw similar texts about the *ist. The only HARD evidence (the early prototypes at PMA and CeBit) show the contrary. Now, I am quite certain that the prototype at PMA is a different one from the one at CeBit, and both featured the crippled mount. Are you feeling small waves of coldness on your back? I am... For the *ist D I have good-heartedly indicated Kaf2 on the KMP, but I could actually imagine how Pentax is thinking: "those people have been raving for a DSLR for years. How about we save $5 on the aperture coupling and $5 on aperture rings, and they all go out and replace those fabulous 15/3.5, 18/3.5, 20/4, etc. lenses with FAJ equivalents"... I hold that for unlikely but very possible. > If the lens mount in the *ist D, with full compatibility for K and > M lenses, scremount lenses (with adapter), 645 (with adapter) and > 67 (with adapter) are "crippled mount", then why would this be a > bad thing? The crippled mount cannot meter properly with K and M lenses. Either part 1 of your statement is true or part 2 but not both. My explanation is that someone re-edited the MZ-D press release, updating the text hier and there. Compare the "Lens compatibility" sections fo both press releases... > Not true. It's possible to make a full electronic lens mount with > aperture ring on the lenses. One simply has to have a mechanical > to electrical decoder for the aperture ring in the lenses, so that > the lens can send aperture ring information to the body. Now read your statement a few times loud and ask yourself how likely that is... > This might be what Pentax are working on. It's probably less > expensive to have electrical decoders around the aperture ring > instead of a complete mechanical system. I am no expert but consider myself relatively compentent about the workings of the Pentax mounts. What you are saying sounds unreasonable to me, and I hold it for unlikely. Having said all this, I realize that neither of us has hard facts, so until we hear new definitive information, this will be my last e-mail on the subject. Piece, Boz
