Paul
On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
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
