Screw you. You guys accept mediocrity for no reason? WHY? Pentax has supported legacy products whenever Technically & economically possible and its certainly technically And economically possible. Its not some "fact of life" that this situation cant change ( new better higher models WITH full KM support). Don't you understand what the difference Between good and bad customer support companies? Good Ones don't abandon support of legacy products for no reason And good ones make products their customers want. Pentax Is going down the tubes if this attitude continues. Whats next? Abandon "A" and "F" And "FA" just because they are "old". Really dumb argument. You must be 9 years old.. Pentax has made some Killer "K" lenses for many many years. To not support them ALL fully like the way cheaper "A" bodies did starting over 20 years ago on $1K bodies really sucks IMHO. I simply do not accept the fact that everything has to get worse with time. Things can get better. You are just a jaded pessimist. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:29 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses? No K or M lens owner sees this as a plus. It is a pity Pentax dropped it. But we don't own or run Pentax. One of the advantages of growing up and becoming an adult is that one learns to take the rough with the smooth, and live with things one can't change. This is a process that JCO has somehow missed out on. Unless he really is only 14 years old, in which case in about seven years time we can look forward to a post from him on a different topic. Until then, he will continue to function as a boil on the collective PDML backside. John On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:15:28 +0100, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not particularly emotional, I do fail to understand why others, > seem to see this as a plus. It clearly isn't and it's hard to > understand the attitude. Some people are nuts about it however, JCO > even attacks people who support his argument on occasion. > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> There are at least three people who get emotional about this. The >> rest of us don't give a damn. >> Paul >> On Oct 8, 2006, at 8:42 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >> >> >> >>> Just because we're relatively quite about it doesn't mean that were >>> happy about it not being there. Especially since it seems to be a >>> purely marketing decision. >>> >>> John Forbes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:58:38 +0100, J. C. O'Connell >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I want the feature very much and I am >>>>> Sure there are millions of lens owners that do to. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Rubbish! >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
