Paul
On Sep 16, 2004, at 8:48 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
does the *istD support autobracketing in any modes with any lenses?
I ask because with the narrower latitude and "free film" of digital capture it seems to me that autobracketing AE would be ideal. There is no way this could be done with the "green button" kludge with K/M but I am wondering if istD offers it with A series or later lenses?
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Most of the people who think it's a problem haven't tried it. Or they tried it once and decided it wasn't an optimum solution. Use it for two weeks, and it's second nature. But the non-believers will never be convinced. Sometimes I think that some people can't be content unless they have something to rail against. But that's just me, and I could be wrong. Paul On Sep 16, 2004, at 8:18 PM, John Forbes wrote:
What bugs me about this argument is that it is so easy to use the green button. Most of my lenses are Ms, and I really don't think it's
a problem. Anybody would think Pentax had shot somebody's grandmother
from the fuss that's being made.
John
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:07:30 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point, John. I use pigeons instead of sell phones and K glass instead of FA, but I'm right up to date on everything else. <vbg> Paul On Sep 16, 2004, at 7:44 PM, John Forbes wrote:
What rubbish.
How long do you want Pentax to keep supporting a product which is now almost 30 years old? There IS a cost to it, and for most people, there is no benefit. For those who want to use K and M lenses, the green button solution is perfectly adequate. If you want
something better, for God's sake buy a newer lens.
Are you still wearing the clothes you bought 30 years ago? Driving the same car? Using the same music system? Calculating with a pencil? Typing on a type-writer? Using pigeons instead of a mobile
phone?
I don't think so.
You've had a damn good ride. Please don't put up the cost of my camera because you insist on using ancient glass on yours.
John
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:31:32 -0400, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An interesting rhetorical device, changing the point from the technical and or marketing reason to not include a feature to criticizing the form factor as not being able to contain it. A bush league debating trick which I'm not even going to answer. Simply put changing the subject doesn't improve you original position. There was no valid technical reason and only the sleaziest of marketing reasons to not include the mechanical coupling. Defending them does you no credit. Backward compatibility may have been an after though but that seems to be a stretch based on Pentax's previous offerings and literature. Personally I plan on buying a *ist-d[x] at some point, it is currently the only game in town if I want to stay with Pentax. However the Current *ist-D is in my opinion overpriced for a device
that leaves off one of my most important features, (and you read my
previous post incorrectly if you thought I felt the green button was onerous, it is annoying though since there were even better solutions to the stop down metering problem than it implemented and
even more annoying since I believe that the mechanical coupling was
dropped after being included in the original design). I am waiting
to see if the next *ist-D version has the green button and the high
frame rate of the *ist-Ds, at a minimum. Keith Whaley wrote:
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Looks like it's Rob's point, especially since the late and in some quarters lamented MZ-D apparently had full K mount compatibility.
What you're saying is, a digi camera body the size of the MZ-D had the room, and they did it, why not the ist-DS? I don't know how the MZ-D compared to the ist-DS. The -D is considered small, in comparison to a number of cameras. The -DS is even smaller than that...
So, I couldn't judge unless I was privy to a phantom or breakaway view of them, side by side. I think that if the design team had approached the system design with including K-mount capability from the beginning, what you say
is true. However, if the design was essentially complete when the question arose--what about the K-mount backward compatibility? Stranger things have happened with new products...
We may someday know the truth.
keith
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 at 19:24, Keith Whaley wrote:
Ha, ha... I knew you'd say that... No disrespect meant, Rob.
You have a background in engineering, can you seriously imagine a reason why it wouldn't have been practical or economical to implement given it's inclusion on most all previous K mount bodies? The camera is essentially a mechanical film body without
http://www.opera.com/m2/a film advance and with an electronic sensor in place of the film. There is no more going on around the mount area than on any previous K mount bodies. The interface to the electronic system would have been a doddle and so would the software integration. Lets face they though it enough of a problem for the punters to implement the "green button" kludge after the fact . I bet that cause some debate and consternation in house, particularly in marketing (as they had essentially won to that point). My speculation only of course but I haven't heard any more logical arguments to date.
Rob Studdert
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
