Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Anthony wrote: But to repeat, those operations that are presently done mechanically to be initiated electronically instead, this would require the lens to have independent drive mechanisms for focus and diaphragm. REPLY: It could also be as simple as having fully digital camera electronics in a digital camera. It is probably cheaper to engineer and manufacture. Expensive engineering solutions for lenses of an increasing age make less and less business sense, particularly in price sensitive products, as time moves on. At a certain stage they have to cut the link when 20+ years worth of more recent lens production don't demand the solutions regretable as that may be. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Peter, I do see a reason to continue this dicussion. As well, it isn't up to you to draw a line under your own message and declare it the last word. You raised issues that I disagree with, and it is my choice to answer them. Did I start the cheapness and nastiness? I quoted a cheapshot comment that upset me, but you haven't pointed out what prior cheapshot comment of mine upset you, you just made the accusation without substantiation. If you refer to the sarcastic remarks in my recent posts, they were your own comments that I recycled because they were apt for both sides of the debate. It would be treading on thin ice to claim that they were the first offending remarks. Paal's facts are true. It's his conclusion you disagree with, but he should be let draw his own conclusions without being accused of making false claims. Your zeal to protect the truth was misguided. In reality it is you who has misled. You declared that the *ist D would be unusable. What is obvious is that you don't want to use it. Whether it is in fact usable or unusable isn't defined by your opinion. I never said you didn't like Paal. I never said I didn't like you. Being in disagreement does not equal dislike. This is, after all, a discussion forum and it's expected that contrary views will be exchanged. To tell me that (I) just don't like (you) presumes too much. What I do notice is that your opinions come across as canon (excuse the pun) even when the issues in debate are subjective ones. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're the one who started out being cheap and nasty. To use your own words GET THIS since you don't seem to understand, I like Pål. I even agree with him a lot of the time. He is however a Pentax Partisan and he likes to win, to do so he will, how shall I say this, re-interpret facts to bolster his argument. Like all good or for that matter bad debaters he then treats it as true, I won't let him do that. Now I started out to answer your missive point by point since there are some I agree with and others I don't, but I realized you just don't like me, and more importantly nothing I could say will even have any effect. Furthermore based on this one point of your note here, if Pentax knows so much more about making and selling cameras then we do, why even discuss it? I see no reason to even continue this conversation. At 03:34 PM 7/4/03 +1000, you wrote:
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
- Original Message - From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anthony Farr wrote: Pentax knows more about making and selling cameras than you or I ever will. I find it interesting that you accept that for Pentax, but not for Minolta: It works because it works, and because we tell you so. Trust us, we're Minolta's advertising agency and we wouldn't lead you astray. REPLY: I was referring to actual accomplishments, not advertising claims. Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses? Recent years ? Canon ? All EF mount lenses work with all EF mount cameras ? Yes, they did a major change 20 years ago, from FD to EF, Pentax did one from screw to K too, but after that they didn't play sh*tty compatibility games. Like those with current FAJ lenses that don't work with current cameras such as MZ-5n. REPLY: Is it really twenty years? I can't be bothered confirming it so it take your word. To me that's still recent (I've been married 15 years and remember my wedding day like it was yesterday). Canon was an early adopter of totally electronic interface, mainly because electronic communication through the lens mount had matured as a concept when the FD mount was found to be unsuited to AF. But when K-mount was in development the photo world was a mechanical one, and that mount was an expression of the contemporary state-of-affairs. When the first evolution of K-mount , to KA, came up the photo world was becoming an electronic realm. But Pentax was in no position to abandon it's mechanical concept after only eight(?) years. Imagine the bitching and moaning of today and multiply that by any factor you care to mention, then add your grandmother's age, and the grief would have been twice as bad. Instead they piggybacked an electronic aperture onto a mechanical one, creating a 'Frankenstein' arrangement where the aperture value is communicated mechanically when the lens is off A, and electronically when set to A, but in both cases activated mechanically so that compatability with their all-mechanical predecessors was maintained. Now, twentysome years and and a couple more evolutions later, now is as good a time as any to strip some of the redundancies out of some lenses and some cameras, because the photo world is again transitioning to electronics, this time it's the imaging media. So why make Pentax users face two changes, first to digital imaging and later to a more complete electronic lens interface, when the two changeovers can be integrated. Sooner or later all camera mounts and lens operations will become fully electronic, so we can expect more evolutions of K-mount GET THIS. Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their current and planned lenses. Get this: the *ists were designed with FAJ type lenses in mind. REPLY: That's absolutely true, and an *ist will work equally well with any past, present or upcoming A, F, FA, or FAJ lens (with a questionmark over the F/FA28 Soft F/FA85 Soft). So what was the question? cheers, caveman regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Anthony Farr wrote: So why make Pentax users face two changes, first to digital imaging and later to a more complete electronic lens interface, when the two changeovers can be integrated. I haven't heard of any more complete interface, on the contrary, it's about a less complete one, like in lacking something that previously was there (an aperture simulator coupling). cheers, caveman
Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Pål wrote: PJ The FA-J lenses are for those cheap ones who don't want to pay for PJ aperture rings they don't know how to use. You seem to forget the *ist d effectively forbids the use of aperture ring, so along this *ist line it looks likely the Pentax won't manufacture lenses with aperture rings anymore. Unless they do announce publicly a future high end body that makes use of lens aperture rings and inherently is compatible with K/M lenses, there is no reason we should expect the FA line to be continued. PJ Such lenses are popular among Nikon a Canon entry level buyers. PJ The rest of us aren't affected by FA-J lenses. Unless you know something you don't intend to disclose, I'm afraid you are plainly wrong. The best the rest of us can expect is FAJ Star lenses. Servus, Alin
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
I wrote: Without compatibility games you had to use the D10 with FD lenses, but most likely Canon would have been out of slr manufacturing without compatibility games. So would Nikon. Or Minolta. REPLY: Let me just add that without compatibility games (what a stupid term!) there would be no K or M lenses the *istD could be incompatible with. Talk about contradiction! Pål
Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Looking at my last 8 rolls of Provia, the statistics are that I bracket for almost every still subject in order to have a copy, to vary depth of field or try a smoother boke, and only once or twice I did bracket for exposure. And that happened when I wasn't sure of the compensation to apply on a certain shade I had my spot meter on. Odd as it may sound I'm perfectly happy with all the exposures, but then my needs are not that varied. :o\ Servus, Alin Herb wrote: HC bracketing everything is cheap. not having near duplicate HC originals to send out and not having different variations to suit HC different needs is foolish. there is no such thing as a single perfect HC exposure of a scene to suit every need.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Caveman wrote: Recent years ? Canon ? All EF mount lenses work with all EF mount cameras ? Yes, they did a major change 20 years ago, from FD to EF, Pentax did one from screw to K too, but after that they didn't play sh*tty compatibility games REPLY: Huh? The Canon D10 is compatible with lenses Canon have released the last 16 years. The *istD is compatible with lenses Pentax have released the last 20 years. Neither brand is compatible with 20+ year old lenses. The FA-J lenses are for those cheap ones who don't want to pay for aperture rings they don't know how to use. Such lenses are popular among Nikon a Canon entry level buyers. The rest of us aren't affected by FA-J lenses. The intended market will be please with the FA-J lenses. The rest of us can safely ignore them. Without compatibility games you had to use the D10 with FD lenses, but most likely Canon would have been out of slr manufacturing without compatibility games. So would Nikon. Or Minolta. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Herb: That's not a good thing. You are either happy with shots that could have been better if tweaked a little, or, more likely, you are only taking shots of subjects in average light that turn out perfect in automatic mode. I know that evaluative metering these days is exceptional, but it's not perfect. And bracketing everything is not only expensive but you never really force yourself into learning proper exposure. Don't get me wrong, if you're happy that's great, but I think you should experiment a little to push yourself and the camera to greater heights.. Just my two cents Vic In a message dated 7/4/03 5:58:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i have yet to take a frame with any of my cameras that have it where i switch to manual exposure mode or away from evaluative metering mode. i used to have to do it the old fashioned way out of necessity and i don't miss it one bit. half stop bracketing at recommended, half under, and full under has covered every situation i have tried, and i shoot almost all Provia 100F and Velvia. with slide film, i bracket every single composition except possibly the last frame on a roll. occasionally i shoot print film and with that, i either don't bracket or bracket full stops biased toward overexposure. Herb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Anthony Farr wrote: Pentax knows more about making and selling cameras than you or I ever will. I find it interesting that you accept that for Pentax, but not for Minolta: It works because it works, and because we tell you so. Trust us, we're Minolta's advertising agency and we wouldn't lead you astray. Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses? Recent years ? Canon ? All EF mount lenses work with all EF mount cameras ? Yes, they did a major change 20 years ago, from FD to EF, Pentax did one from screw to K too, but after that they didn't play sh*tty compatibility games. Like those with current FAJ lenses that don't work with current cameras such as MZ-5n. GET THIS. Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their current and planned lenses. Get this: the *ists were designed with FAJ type lenses in mind. cheers, caveman
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
You're the one who started out being cheap and nasty. To use your own words GET THIS since you don't seem to understand, I like Pål. I even agree with him a lot of the time. He is however a Pentax Partisan and he likes to win, to do so he will, how shall I say this, re-interpret facts to bolster his argument. Like all good or for that matter bad debaters he then treats it as true, I won't let him do that. Now I started out to answer your missive point by point since there are some I agree with and others I don't, but I realized you just don't like me, and more importantly nothing I could say will even have any effect. Furthermore based on this one point of your note here, if Pentax knows so much more about making and selling cameras then we do, why even discuss it? I see no reason to even continue this conversation. At 03:34 PM 7/4/03 +1000, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you. I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pål is passing opinion as fact and he should be called on it. I wasn't the only one who did. I make no other claim than that. Peter, That's a pretty empty comment, cheap and nasty in fact. As I wasn't part of the discussion until then you could ONLY have ignored me. You may have been responding immediately to Pål, but you were doing it in a public forum, so any claim to exclude third party comments is invalid. If you want your discussion with Pål to be personal why was it accessable to anyone else? Pål's writing style is well known and established on PDML, and it becomes tiresome that you and some others can't adjust to it. Give the Scandinavian a break if he uses absolute definitions when something more flexible or abstract would be more fitting. The world is wider than English speaking countries and I for one am impressed and pleased that so many people from non-English speaking countries make the effort to correspond with us. As for *ist compatability, I can equally say that I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pentax knows more about making and selling cameras than you or I ever will. They are looking towards the whole world of new camera buyers, not a couple of hundred retro gear afficianados on an email list. Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses? You expect Pentax to be cheaper than CNM (I've read as much), but OTOH you can't abide it when they actually apply the same measures as their competitors in an effort to equalise the comparitive costs and qualities. GET THIS. Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their current and planned lenses. With the possible exception of the soft focus lenses they are compatible with all lenses made for a little over TWENTY YEARS at the level of function that the lens offered when new (and that's extremely generous). With any older Pentax K-mount lens they can either be used fully manually, or in a metered mode with a non-functional diaphragm, and M42 lenses with adapters can be used in stopdown metered modes. That's a pretty good effort IMO, better than most and vastly better than the brand most often touted as the one to jump ship for. But it's so typical of the Bitch Moan element of PDML that all one reads is reasons why CNM are better, and how Pentax should be more like them and yet remain individualistic, have faster and quieter AF but still have sharper AF, and have faster film wind, but be lighter with less battery consumption, and have higher shutter speeds and X-synchs, but have more durable and dependable shutters, and not be plastic, and always be weather sealed, and have USM and IS (even though their target customers are not in the USM/IS spending category), but still always be cheaper than CNM. Why don't you just buy a Canon and be done with it? Then you'll never be embarrassed for your camera's sake, again. And THEN you call me short sighted, WHAT A JOKE! (not laughing) Anthony Farr To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
William Robb wrote: What a hilarious pile of crap. William, It might appear hilarious, but he's right. Annoying, isn't it! ;-) John
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
That's OK, Paal. My H3 didn't have 20 years of Pentax lenses to be compatable with either. And, the Nikon F was even worse there were no old lenses that fit it. One has to start somewhere, but if the lenses fits, it ought to work! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] It was a fact. Not an opinion. The LX did not have 20 years of full compatibility. It did not have a similar large number of lenses to be compatible with as the *istD. This is an observation. It is not an apology for anything. Pentax didn't bother with 20+ year of compatibility when releasing the LX. They don't now either (also an observation).
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
first, a single exposure of anything is taking too many risks. anything important gets six exposures so that i have six nearly identical originals to send out if i need to sent originals out. second, what i think is best exposure when i take the picture may not be what i think is best exposure when i look at the images later. third, i have yet to find a time when i take a shot where the meter has been fooled too much. if there is that much contrast, there isn't a shot worth taking for me. i can't sell it. Herb - Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 09:03 Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) This suits your subjects and style and is not necessarily the do-it-all approach. Some prefer precise exposure to bracketing and take the time to achieve it in manual, with TTL spot meter or hand held. Some high contrast scenes scenes cannot be evaluated correctly even by the most advanced matrix meters, so one has to resort to own brain algorithms. Not that I don't use multisegment with negatives when I feel it can handle the scene.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
bracketing everything is cheap. not having near duplicate originals to send out and not having different variations to suit different needs is foolish. there is no such thing as a single perfect exposure of a scene to suit every need. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:36 Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) Herb: That's not a good thing. You are either happy with shots that could have been better if tweaked a little, or, more likely, you are only taking shots of subjects in average light that turn out perfect in automatic mode. I know that evaluative metering these days is exceptional, but it's not perfect. And bracketing everything is not only expensive but you never really force yourself into learning proper exposure. Don't get me wrong, if you're happy that's great, but I think you should experiment a little to push yourself and the camera to greater heights.. Just my two cents Vic
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Pål When you take a position you defend it even when it's indefensible. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least limited but useable compatibility with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a landscape photographer you know exactly what that means. The *ist series abandons the usability part of that equation. At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! What a hilarious pile of crap. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
At it again, eh Peter. A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack usability? Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no more than that. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. As you see I've quoted your entire message, including its preceding messages, so I can't be accused of taking you out of context. I'd quote the whole thread if I thought it would better illustrate your context, but I'd feel slightly ridiculous doing that };-) regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 5:14 AM Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) Pål When you take a position you defend it even when it's indefensible. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least limited but useable compatibility with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a landscape photographer you know exactly what that means. The *ist series abandons the usability part of that equation. At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Arnold, Apparently the *ist D isn't the right camera for you. You could either hope for better from future models above entry level, or you could look for another DSLR that fits K-mount lenses. Who knows, someone might make a K to 4/3 adapter. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the *ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC Takumars as those are more up-to-date? Arnold
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
On 4 Jul 2003 at 12:23, Anthony Farr wrote: Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no more than that. Only a nuisance? Not from my perspective, I find it ridiculous, very short sighted and a reason for me to have lost much enthusiasm. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you. I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pål is passing opinion as fact and he should be called on it. I wasn't the only one who did. I make no other claim than that. At 12:23 PM 7/4/03 +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: At it again, eh Peter. A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack usability? Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no more than that. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. As you see I've quoted your entire message, including its preceding messages, so I can't be accused of taking you out of context. I'd quote the whole thread if I thought it would better illustrate your context, but I'd feel slightly ridiculous doing that };-) regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 5:14 AM Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) Pål When you take a position you defend it even when it's indefensible. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least limited but useable compatibility with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a landscape photographer you know exactly what that means. The *ist series abandons the usability part of that equation. At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J. To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
At 05:07 PM 7/3/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote: The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! You make a good point but it's a technical point and I think you are confusing people. At least I was confused the first few times I read your statement. K mount lenses were introduced in 1975. The LX was introduced in 1980. While the LX could use screw-mount lenses with an adapter, that resulted in the loss of some features (like open aperture metering) so you deem the LX to have been fully compatible only with K mount lenses, and K mount lenses had a 5 year history at the time that the LX was introduced. The *ist-D is compatible with all A lenses, and the later F and FA lenses. A lenses were introduced approximately 20 years ago. So this camera has 20 years worth of lenses that it can work with. Personally, I'm not terribly upset about the *ist_D's lens compatibility. I have precisely one lens - my Rikenon 55m f1.2 - that I would really like to use with a digital body. But since I hardly ever use it with film, I'm not losing out too badly to be unable to use it with digital. I don't pretend to be able to count, but I looked at the current PUG and wondered how many of the shots there could be taken with the *ist-D. It looks like there are 63 entries, 20 of which were shot with K or M lenses, and 3 of which were shot with screw mount lenses. When I did not know the particulars about a third party lens, I assumed it was A compatible. I think that is a telling statistic. In regards the folks on this list, the compatibility issues of the *ist-D could be significant. Of course, a lot of folks who use older lenses may not be interested in a digital body under any circumstance. As a Pentax user, I hope the *ist-D works out well. If it kicks out good, low-noise images, I'll buy one. But the Pentax corporate and marketing types need to understand that if the Pentax brand does not have any meaning, they will fail. Pentax used to be associated with Super Multi Coating, but as was discussed her some time ago, SMC is now just a trade mark. Pentax used to stand for backwards compatibility, but the *ist cameras toss that aside. So what defines Pentax as a brand? Auto focus abilities? No. Auto metering abilities? No. Build quality? Except for the Mz-S, no. It's not enough to be good at everything. To survive, a brand needs to be good at everything and outstanding at one or two things. So what is Pentax outstanding at? They used to be outstanding at compatibility. Now??? Pentax is not outstanding at autofocus, they are not outstanding at autometering, they are not outstanding at pro level support (ie. -renting lenses, etc.), they are not outstanding in lens lineup (something they had with the A series)... My personal analysis is that Pentax dug themselves in a hole with the compatibility issue, and now they are trying to pull themselves out. Maintaining backwards compatibility is expensive, and gets you little in the market. But they gotta come up with some defining factor, or they will fail. They can produce perfectly fine and competent products, but if people don't associate Pentax with something outstanding, they won't buy into it as a brand I can only hope that the management at Pentax is sophisticated and competent enough to actually understand the marketplace and produce products that will be successful. In that light, the *ist-D may be a step in the right direction. But I worry that it may be just another random step from a company that has seemingly wandered about randomly though the marketplace for the last 20 years. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Rob, It's relative. I'm 'old school' in many ways. I've never been a great advocate of TTL metering, and certainly don't find it indispensable. Only my 35mm cameras have it, and only because I wasn't able to opt out of it and apply the funds elsewhere, as I did with other formats. Even in changeable conditions it usually only takes me a few minutes at setup time to guage the exposure in each part of the field of interest, and then apply the changes manually, from memory, as I move about. That's for fast working, most often I'd hand meter every shot even if the camera did have a TTL meter. How about this?http://www.cosina.co.jp/vc-meter/index.html (sorry about Japanese language only, their link to the English page was broken) One of these might be handy if a pre-A lens and metering is required. OK it's not TTL and it's doesn't have the conceptual purity of internal metering, but it would be usable, and it shouldn't make the user feel too ridiculous };-) regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4 Jul 2003 at 12:23, Anthony Farr wrote: Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no more than that. Only a nuisance? Not from my perspective, I find it ridiculous, very short sighted and a reason for me to have lost much enthusiasm. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) At it again, eh Peter. A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack usability? Good useability is when the manufacture tries to make it easier to use a product combination. Bad usability is when they make it usable at the lowest level possible. I expect Peter assumed that when he used the term usability, the reader would presume good, not bad as being desirable. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
- Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you. I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pål is passing opinion as fact and he should be called on it. I wasn't the only one who did. I make no other claim than that. Peter, That's a pretty empty comment, cheap and nasty in fact. As I wasn't part of the discussion until then you could ONLY have ignored me. You may have been responding immediately to Pål, but you were doing it in a public forum, so any claim to exclude third party comments is invalid. If you want your discussion with Pål to be personal why was it accessable to anyone else? Pål's writing style is well known and established on PDML, and it becomes tiresome that you and some others can't adjust to it. Give the Scandinavian a break if he uses absolute definitions when something more flexible or abstract would be more fitting. The world is wider than English speaking countries and I for one am impressed and pleased that so many people from non-English speaking countries make the effort to correspond with us. As for *ist compatability, I can equally say that I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pentax knows more about making and selling cameras than you or I ever will. They are looking towards the whole world of new camera buyers, not a couple of hundred retro gear afficianados on an email list. Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses? You expect Pentax to be cheaper than CNM (I've read as much), but OTOH you can't abide it when they actually apply the same measures as their competitors in an effort to equalise the comparitive costs and qualities. GET THIS. Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their current and planned lenses. With the possible exception of the soft focus lenses they are compatible with all lenses made for a little over TWENTY YEARS at the level of function that the lens offered when new (and that's extremely generous). With any older Pentax K-mount lens they can either be used fully manually, or in a metered mode with a non-functional diaphragm, and M42 lenses with adapters can be used in stopdown metered modes. That's a pretty good effort IMO, better than most and vastly better than the brand most often touted as the one to jump ship for. But it's so typical of the Bitch Moan element of PDML that all one reads is reasons why CNM are better, and how Pentax should be more like them and yet remain individualistic, have faster and quieter AF but still have sharper AF, and have faster film wind, but be lighter with less battery consumption, and have higher shutter speeds and X-synchs, but have more durable and dependable shutters, and not be plastic, and always be weather sealed, and have USM and IS (even though their target customers are not in the USM/IS spending category), but still always be cheaper than CNM. Why don't you just buy a Canon and be done with it? Then you'll never be embarrassed for your camera's sake, again. And THEN you call me short sighted, WHAT A JOKE! (not laughing) Anthony Farr
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Good usability is when a company has the solvency to get a product onto the store shelves. Bad usability is having no product, and no company, as a result of clinging to old manufacturing inefficiencies in order to placate a noisy but financially unrewarding minority of potential customers. Give Pentax some credit for knowing how to make cameras that, in most cases, sell well. They don't make the camera I most want, either, but then nobody else does because I'm a dinosaur in the age of automation. It's ironic that I think using a camera manually means having only focus, aperture and shutter speed to manipulate. Others would say that manual mode includes a meter, while yet others want the film wound and the focus accomplished by the camera but still call it 'manual' mode because they would bypass the AE mode of the meter. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) At it again, eh Peter. A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack usability? Good useability is when the manufacture tries to make it easier to use a product combination. Bad usability is when they make it usable at the lowest level possible. I expect Peter assumed that when he used the term usability, the reader would presume good, not bad as being desirable. William Robb
