i am pretty sure nikon dumped that compatibility for a completely different reason, that is, forcing the new lenses on consumers. and that wouldn't obviously fly in the hi-end models.
pentax tried to do the same, but apparently underestimated the uproar in the community it caused. so they came up with a hack. the very fact that they did offer a kludge (or solution, whatever you like) speaks volumes about the importance of the old-lens-users in their market segment. and as far as "lenses sitting in the closets" -- i think they are sitting there only because there is currently no dslr body(-ies) for them. everyone who's not happy with *istDsomething has 4 choices Cotty listed. the good news is that the lenses don't just disappear, so the moment someone starts appealing to the new segments of (old) pentax market, there are going to be buyers. point in case: CV making m42 and ltm cameras (although film). i am willing to bet that in a few years there will be a digital one as well. if interested, i'll post the spreads. best, mishka best, mishka On 9/19/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simple. Most of those truckloads of lenses are sitting at the back of a > closet collecting dust, and much of the ones in current use are 50mm's > on a school's K1000's. If there was a large market for K/M lens users > going digital, the DS would have had the hardware integrated. There's > just enough market (or at least complaining) for Pentax to keep with the > kludge they're currently using. > > Same reason why Nikon's dumped that compatibility on it's low/mid range > digitals. No real market for it. > > -Adam > > > Mishka wrote: > > >now that's just plain... strange comment. > > > >what exactly would be the reason preventing the owners of the > >aforementioned truckloads of K/M lenses looking to buy into > >Digital (or DigitaL)? > > > >mishka > > > > > > > >On 9/19/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>While the lenses do exist, the number of owners looking to buy into > >>Digital or modern film are a fairly small fraction of the current > >>market. Barely worth supporting, and not worth the extra engineering > >>required to integrate the extra functionality into the design (Hardware > >>is always harder to integrate than firmware, hence the firmware fix). > >> > >>-Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
