>Yes, but there is no need to set the aperture on the lens when you can set >it on the camera (I'm talking about A and later lenses). Why provide two >ways to do something? It just increases cost and complexity.
>John There is. First of all its safer to set the aperture at the lens, so you don't change it accidently (when using a flash). Secondly because this will allow you to use pre A lemses, of course! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. september 2004 15:10 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist series support for setting the aperture on the lens (was: ist D AE mode for K & M lenses) Jens wrote, inter alia: > The problem as I see it, is that Pentax "ist-series" doesn't support AE > when setting the aperure on the lens. > That actually goes for A, and FA lenses too! Yes, but there is no need to set the aperture on the lens when you can set it on the camera (I'm talking about A and later lenses). Why provide two ways to do something? It just increases cost and complexity. John On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:41:02 +0200, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Pentax has shown odd or inconsistante policies for camera > settings: > > The MZ-S does not allow for setting the aperture from the camera body, > only > on the lens. > Pentax ist, *ist D and *ist Ds (the ist series) do not support setting > the > aperture on the lens. Because these bodies do not have an aperture > simulator. > > It's not that Pentax do not support K & M lenses. They do in a way. > The problem as I see it, is that Pentax "ist-series" doesn't support AE > when > setting the aperure on the lens. > That actually goes for A, and FA lenses too! > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. september 2004 10:24 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: istDs - what a great camera! > > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses. > > Yes, but that's not what I was responding to or saying I agree with. > Just read below, since you are quoting. > >> that opinions based on pure speculation are not valid. You have to >> shoot with it for a week or two, then decide. > > Again, I never questioned that. > > I did some sniping below so you can see what my point is. Who had > noticed that the MZ-60 does not work even with A-series lenses? > Pentax *went of their way* to disable the use of these lenses. Where > does this stop? > > Kostas > >> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
