Alan wrote: Unfortunately, they have already done so. Perhaps they saw Nikon did okay so they followed the same route. I don't know the difficulty of designing a camera with the coupling ring, but that ring can't be expensive. Perhaps US$20 more to the selling price (just to be safe)? But when we are talking about an expensive *ist D, does the cost of the ring really matter? From what I can see, it is the "Pentax Way" to push lens sales. However, without USM or IS technology, I don't see how they could achieve this goal. But then again, these are my speculation only. Perhaps someone with more insight could enlighten us?
REPLY: Even if the saving was only 20 bucks, after one million entry level lenses production you have earned 20 million extra. However, I think the real saving is more than $20. Look at the prices for the FA-J lenses. Achieving the neccessary precision by mechanical means is expensive compared to providing the same electronically, particularly for high volume items. I suspect that one of the real impetuses behind this move is precision. I believe it is impossible to achieve precise enough aperture control with auto settings via the old K-mount protocol. Obviously, Pentax goes the fullly auto route with the *ists but they have provided choices for those who want to use precise manual aperture controls with the MZ-5/3 and the MZ-S. The *ist D is pushed on price and profitability. Pentax will save where they can. Don't underestimate market research either. Perhaps they have figured out that market for a DSLR for users with 20+ year old lenses are slim indeed. And that people who haven't bought a single Pentax lens in 20 years or have bought everything cheap on e-bay aren't really in a market for an expensive DSLR. It is OK with great backwards compatibility. However, I doubt Pentax will give it to those unwilling to pay for it. Pål
