>
>
>I am not a Canon mole, only a photographic mole.
>
A new horror movie directed by John Waters the "Attack of the Giant
Photographic Mole!"
Cotty wrote:
>On 31/8/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>
>>Your suggestion that the new camera will only work with USM lenses is, of
>>course, a pathetic attempt by a Canon mole to spread FUD. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Not at all dear boy. Just a plain fact.
>
>The only reason I sold most of my Pentax manual focus film gear and
>purchased Canon digital, was because I was probably too impatient, and
>did not want to wait yet another year or 2 for the Pentax offering. For
>me, buying and selling lenses is just part and parcel of the game. Most
>come and go, some are gems and stay the distance, even making the
>transition across brands, why not?
>
>When I decided to switch, there was a lot of 'oooh, think of all that
>money you're going to have to shell out for new lenses, what a waste,
>what a shame, what a'......load a bollocks!
>
>There's only one thing I'm really interested in and that's the picture.
>Everything else is a supporting role, equipment included. If that means
>I sell all my Canon gear and buy a coupld of K10Ds and some lenses,
>that's fine. Not a problem. Unlikely, but not a problem. If a K1D made
>an appearance, I might be sorely tempted. For now, Canon does the job. I
>have no reason to diss Pentax.
>
>I am genuinely interested as to what the new technology Pentax will be
>offering in the K10D. If that means backward incompatibility, then I
>want to know, as I'm sure do others.
>
>I am not a Canon mole, only a photographic mole.
>
>
>!!
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
