Hi Pål, on 07 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> I cannot see why the abandonment of the aperture simulator should >> help implementing IS or USM. If they need a new protocol to implement >You're basically right. However, the lack of cmpatibility is a cost issue >first and foremost in case of the *ists. This is something, that I could accept. I did never mind the crippled mount on a MZ-30/50/60, as there is no need to buy such a camera. But I can't understand, why cost cutting is an argument on a 2000,- DLSR. What might that saving be? 10,- Euro/US$? >They have implemented though a new protocol and this protocol open of >for electronic aperture control and control of built in motors in >lenses in addition to power zoom. Pentax may want to install a user >base for this new protocol before they take it any further. Maybe. But then they should inform that user base, what this mount modifications are about and why they are changing something that has worked for decades. Canon had a clearly communicated reasons to change their mount with the introduction of the EOS line. Pentax has communicated nothing at all - we had to find out these technical details ourselves. And I'm quite sure, that we know much more that most of the Pentax people... At the moment the only thing I can see is a step back an no perspective for improvements. That's really disappointing. Cheers, Heiko
