The capture has nothing to do with the lensmount. There are no new lenses or lens features on this camera. Why do you propose that it being a digital camera prevented the K/M support when there is nothing new going on with regard to the cameras lens mount, just part of it is missing. Sorely missing. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 20 years of film cameras that fully supported > both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need > to show it can be done. I know it can be done > because I could design it myself it is so simple. > all it is is simple exposure compensation, so > many stops more exposure per degree of rotation > of the cam. Don't be apologizing for what they > have done pretending there was some reason when > it is obvious there was no technical reason to > do. > JCO Okay, but what you have neglected to address is, we're talking about incorporating lens adjustment levers and such in a digital body. Unless you consider that, all this is the hoary apples and oranges gambit. That Pentax could account for all manner of electrical and mechanical adjustments on any of their K-mount bodies is just a data point. It does not go without saying that they could "easily" accomodate such an arrangement in a digital body. Perhaps you DO know what room is available in the D and DS for all the linkages, I don't know. If you do know, I'll shut up permanently! <good for all!> keith keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >>I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality >>of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. >>It is a first in their history and goes against >>everything they always stood for in supporting >>legacy products when possible. They certainly could >>have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. > > > "...[V]ery easily?" How do you know they could have? > Isn't it even possible that their design engineers looked at the > possibility and veto'd it, for some reason they didn't choose to > reveal to the general > public? > Don't you suppose there could have been one or more reasons for the > exclusion that are not obvious to you? > It's entirely possible it was a higher-up management decision, and it > didn't > need a lot of justification. Big boss says do it, you do it. But which > ever one it might have been, we really don't know, and until we > do, all else is supposition. > Typical of human nature, we choose to assign nefarious, perverse reasons > for > the decision. Smacks of paranoia... > > I don't think they're trying to tick off all their old customers. But, > they do have a company to run, don't they. Decisions need to be made, > some of > > which may not be well-accepted by the miniscule M-42 crowd or the > non-auto K-mount folks. > > All that is supposition, too. But, if you're going to make supposition > the order of the day, you'll have to broaden the blame, and assign > some more > > weight to pure short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which > we are simply not privy to... > > keith > > >>This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. >>I would not put anything past them after this. >>JCO >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! >> >> >>Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. >>I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... >>All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do >>tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and >>what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! >>All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! >> >>Soothsaying without a license no less! >> >>"What if's" are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. >> >>keith whaley >> >>mike wilson wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and >>>>when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. >>> >>> >>>I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this >>>issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses >>>that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F >> >>series. >> >> >>>mike >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >
