Re: Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes / changingplatforms)

2002-09-12 Thread Pål Jensen 

Christoffer wrote:

 It's just slow torture compared with the revolutionary change of going
 from FD to EOS...

Theres more to it than that. Having great backwards compatibility may be considered 
good when releasing new cameras. However, in the long run it erodes sales from newer 
cameras and lenses. Manufacturers build in obsolence in order to sell more products. A 
risky strategy but it may pay well off.

 
 Nikon and Canon can not compete with Pentax on the basis of
 comprehensive compatibility. The Pentax system can not compete with the
 Nikon or Canon on the basis of comprehensiveness or ultimate technology.


But the latter point has nothing to do with compatibility.

Pål

Re: Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes / changingplatforms)

2002-09-12 Thread Herb Chong 

Theres more to it than that. Having great backwards compatibility may be
considered good when releasing new cameras. However, in the long run it
erodes sales from newer cameras and lenses. Manufacturers build in
obsolence in order to sell more products. A risky strategy but it may pay
well off.


Pentax doesn't seem to have enough new sales and confidence that people
will switch to a new mount to push forward too ambitiously. the huge base
of lenses that work on all K-mount cameras is a liability as well as an
advantage.

Herb.

Re: Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes /changingplatforms)

2002-09-12 Thread Christopher Lillja 

I absolutely agree. I simply didn't want to be accused of overstating
the case for Pentax based on the former point. (About superior
compatibility.)

Chris L.

The Pentax system can not compete with the
 Nikon or Canon on the basis of comprehensiveness or ultimate
technology.


But the latter point has nothing to do with compatibility.

Pål

Re: Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes / changingplatforms)

2002-09-12 Thread Bruce Rubenstein 

The main one is with G lenses. Nikon dropped the aperture ring from the
lens, so the only way to control it via body controls. This wasn't much of
an issue when only the cheapest, entry level lenses were like this, but now
Nikon in also introducing good lenses like this. Only bodies starting with
(I think) the F5 can fully control these lenses in all metering modes. This
makes them effectivly useless, although they can be mounted, on most Nikon
bodies in existence.


From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What's the issue with the incompatibility of the new Nikon lenses?

Re: Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes / changingplatforms)

2002-09-12 Thread RayXr 


Bruce wrote:

The concept of forwards and backwards compatibility is only intelligible if everyone 
uses the terms in a similar manner. Backwards compatibility is generally understood to 
mean being able to use new accessories (lenses, flashes, etc.) on old cameras. 
Forwards compatibility is old accessories on new cameras.

OK, I can agree with those terms.  So in my case my K mount lenses have a forwards 
compatibility problem with lower-priced Pentax bodies now being offered, right?  BTW, 
where did you originally come across those terms?

Best,

Ray