On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > You guys don't seem to understand the implication of > > abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no > > one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason > > to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted > > to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever > > they want to do on anything. > > That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that > way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one.
No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60. I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which is why I am nor saying "to buy"). I am not keen to recommend even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant future. Kostas
