At it again, eh Peter. A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack "usability"?
Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no more than that. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. As you see I've quoted your entire message, including its preceding messages, so I can't be accused of taking you out of context. I'd quote the whole thread if I thought it would better illustrate your context, but I'd feel slightly ridiculous doing that };-)> regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 5:14 AM Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine) > Pål > > When you take a position you defend it even when it's > indefensible. The problem is people on the list > who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least > limited but useable compatibility > with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a > "landscape photographer" you know exactly > what that means. The *ist series abandons the usability part of that > equation. > > At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: > >Arnold wrote: > > > >It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because > >they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market > >for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard > >sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards > >compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only > >spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not > >unneccessarily devalued. > > > > > >REPLY: > > > >It IS true. You are just an exception. > >The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX > >had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses > >compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses > >and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of > >compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! > > > >Pål > > > > > > To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is > designed by > the post office, even the sleaze. > O'Rourke, P.J. > >
