Is it not interesting that people are predicting Pentax's Future
from crippled (and mostly LowBall) bodies?  Hell, I am too.
Well, the old glass is still cheap, may get cheaper, and as long
as my eyes can still focus, the hell with it.

Chris Brogden wrote:
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when the F80 (N80)
was introduced, with its deliberately designed inability to meter with
pre-autofocus Nikkors.

That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but it was
probably *one* of the reasons.  Now Pentax have done it, and Canon and
Minolta did it a long time ago, I have nowhere to go!



So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.

I was scared of this happening when Pentax first started messing with
their entry-level bodies.  First the MZ-50, which would only meter at full
aperture but would still stop down a K/M series lens properly.  Then the
MZ-30 and 60, which won't even work with non-A lenses or with A-series
lenses taken off the "A" setting.  Then the FAJ lenses, which don't even
have aperture rings.  And now we have their first, and flagship, DSLR,
which essentially works like a digital MZ-60.  This completely and totally
hoovers.

Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease, considering that
Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital Rebel won't fit on their 35mm
bodies, but Pentax has a history of excellent body/lens compatibility,
which they now seem to be doing their best to throw away.  Pentax can't
hope to compete with N/C in many ways, but they've still been able to
carve out a niche for themselves by offering inexpensive entry-level
bodies, high-quality lenses, and excellent compatibility.  Once their
compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like Nikon's
G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just alientated a lot of
people.  They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and p&s cameras, but
they'll simply be a lesser company than C/N instead of a different one.

chris






Reply via email to