Since you like me are wordy, my just as wordy reply interspersed :-).
On 11/1/2010 8:22 PM, Miserere wrote:
Boris, I'd say yes and no. I suppose we should take into account what
*might* happen 5 years from now, but what's more important to me is
what happens this Friday when I go shooting. If I need a DA lens for
my subjects, then I'll buy it and use it; it would seem silly to me
not to do so just because *maybe* in 5 years time that lens will
become unusable on the new bodies. I don't look at my Photography
equipment as an investment fund, but rather like a toolbox. Some tools
last forever, others become obsolete and lose all value; nevertheless,
these obsolete tools might have been indispensable to my trade for 99%
of their working life.
I agree with everything you say. It goes well in line with my
observation that /presently/ my gear is just fine. It is a matter of
taste and preference, but none of the DA lenses really inspire me. If it
wasn't Galia's kit, I would have sold DA 21 long time ago, 'cause now I
have FA 20/2.8 which to my taste and preference outdoes it square and fair.
No argument from me on that! I've been quite vocal (fingeral?) on many
Pentax forums about the lack of fast primes in certain focal lengths;
I am well aware that despite Pentax being known as a prime lens
specialist, their range has some serious holes. But...I don't see a
MILC as an evolution of the K-mount cameras but rather as a parallel
entity, and as such, it requires independence from its K-mount
brethren. It should be its own camera, and it should have new lenses
that take advantage of the reduced registration distance (meaning they
can be smaller, simpler and lighter) and the camera shouldn't be
handicapped just for the sake of backwards compatibility with lenses
from another line.
That's right. I mean, I agree with you again. In fact, if Pentax wants
to really introduce entirely new mount - that would be the smartest way
to go - have a parallel system and slowly phase out the old one.
I'm not saying that MILCs should overrun DSLRs; there should still be
K-5s, K-3s and K-1s for those that need/want/prefer a DSLR, but for
those of us who want the convenience and advantages of a MILC, the
option should be there.
Well, in (m)43 world you have E-3/E-5 and Leica 25/1.4 that as I
understand you can also mount of m43 cameras with adapter that will
retain all the lens functions including AF. So, the co-existence may be
even more peaceful.
Samsung is very serious about it, but I wonder for how long if the
market doesn't respond like they hope it will. Panolympus will likely
continue to evolve their micro-4/3 line, seeing as it's their current
cash cow, and they've finally started to get some more primes into
their stable, but I'm not too convinced by their camera bodies. It's
all about taste and preference, and *I* like the Samsung NX10 camera a
lot more. When I've saved up enough money to buy my next camera, I'll
see what's available and make my choice; I would love for Pentax to
have an option for me at that time.
Why Pentax? You yourself correctly or at least logically observed that
MILC from Pentax should be independent from K-mount or parallel to it.
So there is no /logical/ reason to stick with Pentax, isn't it?
It seems to me that I am approaching the dead end with my gear.
Surely not! You will always be able to use your 50mm f/1.2 on a Pentax
camera :-)
Now that I have Pentax MX, I surely will /keep/ it and A 50/1.2
indefinitely (hoping here that it will not be involved in the accident
similar to that where my first FA 43 sustained inflicted damage).
But fortunately I have an agreement with the potential buyer of most of
my other gear.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
