Silly me. Village Idiot
> Don't you want Pentax to sell new products, (besides you could maintain > full available automation, something you lose with the current converter). > > Village Idiot wrote: > > >I thought that they already made a Pentax 67 Lens to Pentax 645 Body Adapter? > > > >Village Idiot > > > > > > > > > > > >>In that case they could intend to sell a big circular lens converter for > >>67 lenses where you just pop that ring off and add the converter. > >> > >>John Francis wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Village Idiot mused: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>My biggest complaint aesthetically about "B" is the curved > >>>>Pentax nameplate on the front of the viewfinder. I like the > >>>>classic straight name. I think the curved nameplate has a cheap > >>>>look to it, as if Pentax was unable to fit it on a straight line. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>If you look at the "B" again, there's a big circular ring all > >>>around the lens mount, and the name follows this. I don't see > >>>any reason for that to be there - while it's large enough for > >>>a 67 lens mount by the looks of things, that wouldn't work; > >>>the register distance of the 67 is greater than that of the 645. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > >>During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings > >>and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during > peacetime. > >> --P.J. O'Rourke > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings > and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during > peacetime. > --P.J. O'Rourke > >
