I've been reading this thread for a while, and I can't resist anymore: 1. Sure they could have put the mechnaical coupler in the *ist D. Mark may very well be right that they have future elctrical coupling desings where the mechnaics must go, but it's not in this camera. I also dont' buy the weaning strategy. It's better to take the hit on the camera that gives the advantage, e.g., IS lenses or something.
2. I don't think the economic argument, i.e., it adds $10-100 to the price, is very strong unless you feel that group that has a lot of K/M lenses is too samll to matter. It's this latter point that bothers many of us. We kind of assumed that we were the group the *ist D was aimed at. 3. There actually is apro market that the *ist D could attract, i.e., the ones using Pentax MF equipment, especially 645. These folks may decide that 6 MP DSLR's are good enough fro some apps. They do hold certain advantages over 35, but most of these usages involve AF, so K/M lenses don't matter. 4. I think that we are actually seeing Pentax (and everyone else) abandon 35mm. I suspect that Pentax wants to conetrate on the folks who want AF, and that those that don't will have no where to go. Further, I suspect they feel that those whose switch to Canon over this were probably going to do so anyway. Yeah, it's a cold business decision. But, they are a business afterall, and they may have decided that their current approach wasn't working. Sales will tell if there decision was correct. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
