I didn't realise MZ-6 was cheaper than *ist, although I think *ist might have a higher spec shutter and metering (not sure of this) and definitely has higher spec in its autofocus. So it's really a matter of opinion whether it's better or worse value for money. I'd like to see the two cameras compared feature for feature before deciding if they're parallel enough to be comparing prices.
Of course Pentax is hoping lens sales are enhanced by obsoleting their pre 1980 (approximately) models. So long as they maintain a backwards compatible model in the eventual model line-up we shouldn't moan too much. They can't be expected to compete with other brands if they have to continue building a redundant aperture simulator into every camera just for the benefit of a minority of users. It's more important that they don't artificially shut out those lenses simply because they'd rather you bought a new one. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artur Ledóchowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (snip) > > Then what about the MZ-6? It is also full of features, it's even cheaper that the *ist, it's also destined for the amateur market, yet the compatibility is maintained. No, I don't agree with you - it's the Pentax strategy that has changed. It's all about decreasing the 2nd-hand market and selling more FA lenses(or especially the unfamous FA J lenses). Actually it's good from the marketing point of view... although those Pentax users, who are get used to the famous Pentax backward compatibility, suffer... >
