But we were talking about K/M lenses so its not redundant. There are more K/M lenses than all other lenses combined So its not insignifigant. In other words, MOST Pentax Lenses are not fully supported ( but could be ). jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:08 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey It's redundant on all but K/M lenses. All other lenses (the vast majority of what would actually be used on a DSLR) don't need one. A and later lenses because they couple electronically and adapter-mounted lenses becuase they don't couple at all. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > The K/M lens sensor would not be redundent as there > Is no function already in there doing that. It has > Been removed along with its function just like I stated. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:50 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > >> 1. you are assumeing that these DSLRs will never need service > > No, you are assuming that I am assuming that. > >> 2. can be more reliable means just that. A pair of pliers >> has moving parts, when was the last time you had a pair that >> didn't work? > > This summer, actually. I had a water pump plier that wouldn't hold it's > adjustment anymore, and I managed to snap a set of Kleins removing > electrical staples from old fir studs. > Closer to the topic, I have had (sorry to repeat, but you seem to have > missed it the first time) multiple failures of the very parts required > to allow full operation of a very small number of lenses on several > cameras. > > >> 3. Yes moving parts eventually wear out, but that's no reason >> to remove key features of a camera because some part may >> wear out someday. Your argument of stripping out key features >> just because it involves a moving part is silly, might as >> well get rid of the shutter too and shoot everything with >> your hand in front of the lens as the shutter too? > > Repair issues are a perfectly good reason to remove parts that have > become redundant. > I have seen concept shutters that use an LCD panel instead of moving > parts, when they become viable, you can expect mechanical shutters will > also become a thing of the past. > > William Robb > > > > -- 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
