Re: istDs - what a great camera!
i didn't say it was linear anyway. tooling and assembly jigs can easily cost a hundred times more, per unit, than the part to be inserted. Herb - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:30 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! I've been in engineering for a long time, but I also spent some time working on a factory floor, on an assembly line and in electronics and photographic retail, (not to mention a bunch of higher education in economics). I think I have a very good grasp of the subject.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
That's right tooling and assembly jigs cost considerably more, if it's designed in from the beginning the additional cost can be minuscule. In this case it probably would have been. Herb Chong wrote: i didn't say it was linear anyway. tooling and assembly jigs can easily cost a hundred times more, per unit, than the part to be inserted. Herb - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:30 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! I've been in engineering for a long time, but I also spent some time working on a factory floor, on an assembly line and in electronics and photographic retail, (not to mention a bunch of higher education in economics). I think I have a very good grasp of the subject. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
the cost of the part would have been minimal, but the assembly line tooling wouldn't have been. for a camera that has to cost Pentax at most $500 to make, and probably under $400, a production run of well under 100K, on a brand new line, when the company had lost money for 3 years in a row before, it had to cut all costs possible. they had no intention of full support from the beginning and the firmware update was a fortuitous coincidence of the hardware design. new lenses going forth aren't going to have aperture rings and everything A and forward works fully. they made a good business decision to drop full support for pre A lenses. with the faster drop in price than planned and significantly lower than forecast sales, the *istD could net losing money anyway. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! That's right tooling and assembly jigs cost considerably more, if it's designed in from the beginning the additional cost can be minuscule. In this case it probably would have been.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Think about it, the tooling would have cost the same either way. It's not exactly like a new design was necessary. Re-tooling would add to the project cost, if it were done now. I'm not even sure that re-tooling would be necessary, I haven't taken a *ist-d apart, anyone been that brave yet? Herb Chong wrote: the cost of the part would have been minimal, but the assembly line tooling wouldn't have been. for a camera that has to cost Pentax at most $500 to make, and probably under $400, a production run of well under 100K, on a brand new line, when the company had lost money for 3 years in a row before, it had to cut all costs possible. they had no intention of full support from the beginning and the firmware update was a fortuitous coincidence of the hardware design. new lenses going forth aren't going to have aperture rings and everything A and forward works fully. they made a good business decision to drop full support for pre A lenses. with the faster drop in price than planned and significantly lower than forecast sales, the *istD could net losing money anyway. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! That's right tooling and assembly jigs cost considerably more, if it's designed in from the beginning the additional cost can be minuscule. In this case it probably would have been. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
on a different assembly line from one that had the tooling already in place for about 10 years, it costs a lot. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:45 PM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Think about it, the tooling would have cost the same either way. It's not exactly like a new design was necessary. Re-tooling would add to the project cost, if it were done now. I'm not even sure that re-tooling would be necessary, I haven't taken a *ist-d apart, anyone been that brave yet?
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Herb, they had to set up the tooling for the mount they are using now, it would have cost no more to set up tooling for a mount with full compatibility, your argument holds no water, it is pure sophistry. Herb Chong wrote: on a different assembly line from one that had the tooling already in place for about 10 years, it costs a lot. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:45 PM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Think about it, the tooling would have cost the same either way. It's not exactly like a new design was necessary. Re-tooling would add to the project cost, if it were done now. I'm not even sure that re-tooling would be necessary, I haven't taken a *ist-d apart, anyone been that brave yet? -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
You know I'm very sorry that you're sorry... Cotty wrote: On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: I was afraid you'd start apologising too! Sorry about not being sorry and then being sorry for not paying attention. Hey I can apologise with the best of 'em! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 23/9/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: You know I'm very sorry that you're sorry... PETER DON'T START! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
You must be spoon fed everything like a little baby. If you are down near the lower limit of the meter cells and you attempt to take a meter reading with the lens stopped down at f8 or 11 for example, guess what, NO READING! Stop down metering reduces the metering range by the amount you are stopped down, plain and simple but it went right over your head as usual. The two statements of mine below were a direct reply to the previous posters claims, if you hadn't deleted his claims you would see they refute his claims. They are not understandable unless you know the context. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) The aperture setting is no more precise with K/M lenses on the istD. The metering is not as precise at small fstops and/or low light levels with K/M lenses because it is now the old stop down method which lowers sensitivity and accuracy. I find it amusing that you make these pronouncements like as if you are some kind of latter day Moses. The big difference is you haven't talked to God, and you don't have the stone tablets to back up what you are saying. 1) the removal of the aperture simulator is a metering issue, not an aperture precision issue. 2) the pronouncment about metering being imprecise flies in the face of user experience, which shows that it is perfectly precise. William Robb
Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) You must be spoon fed everything like a little baby. If you are down near the lower limit of the meter cells and you attempt to take a meter reading with the lens stopped down at f8 or 11 for example, guess what, NO READING! Stop down metering reduces the metering range by the amount you are stopped down, plain and simple but it went right over your head as usual. My experience doesn't match your pronouncements, but I freely admit that I just use the stuff. OTOH, the results seem fine. I just tried to photograph my Rottweiler laying on the bed. Dim room, black dog, just the dog's side in the frame, the stop down metering was just fine until around f/8. So , in that a test designed to make the system fail the system failed. In my more normal picture taking situations, where there is actually something visible in the viewfinder, I, and many others who actually use the equipment on a daily basis, aren't running into the problems that you insist are going to screw us up. Why is this John? William Robb
Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
JCO, you have argued the same points to death and back - on numerous ocassions. I think we all know wht you feel about this subject. How about GIVING IT A REST? A. \ On 23/9/04 10:37 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must be spoon fed everything like a little baby. If you are down near the lower limit of the meter cells and you attempt to take a meter reading with the lens stopped down at f8 or 11 for example, guess what, NO READING! Stop down metering reduces the metering range by the amount you are stopped down, plain and simple but it went right over your head as usual. The two statements of mine below were a direct reply to the previous posters claims, if you hadn't deleted his claims you would see they refute his claims. They are not understandable unless you know the context. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) The aperture setting is no more precise with K/M lenses on the istD. The metering is not as precise at small fstops and/or low light levels with K/M lenses because it is now the old stop down method which lowers sensitivity and accuracy. I find it amusing that you make these pronouncements like as if you are some kind of latter day Moses. The big difference is you haven't talked to God, and you don't have the stone tablets to back up what you are saying. 1) the removal of the aperture simulator is a metering issue, not an aperture precision issue. 2) the pronouncment about metering being imprecise flies in the face of user experience, which shows that it is perfectly precise. William Robb
Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
On 23 Sep 2004 at 15:46, Alan Chan wrote: I am with Rob. Though I don't have the *istD, but the accuracy of the aperture at 'A' setting has been questioning for years. The difference could be between less than 1/3 to 2/3EV depends on the lens/camera combination. Exactly, and experiencing variations of even 1/6th of a stop between shots in a pano sequence containing sky ends up being a PITA. This is another of the reasons why you won't catch me buying lenses from Pentax that don't have an aperture ring. 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: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) Yes, I state facts matter of factly. If you don't like what I say argue the points and prove me wrong if you think I am wrong. What facts? All you have done is pulled with a bunch of theoretical crap out of the air. I, and a few others, have actually gone out with the equipment in question and used it. And found that your facts quack in all but a few extreme circumstances. Yes, I have opinions like everyone else, but I am prepared to back them up because my stronger opinions are not formed lightly or on hunches. You admit you haven't used a digital SLR, but you are telling people who use them on a daily basis that the things they know work for them won't work, and you somehow think your facts aren't going to get challenged? All of a sudden, you add the caveat that it's your work in question, not the people who are using the equipment. This just doesn't fly very far JC. William Robb
RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
What a load of BS. I just explained to you how I use LF to do seascapes with boats and why pan and stitch wont work and you tell me I have no experience? You memory isnt very good. I don't need to waste my time doing things I know wont work. I'd rather actually being doing things that do work. I don't need to buy a DSLR to know I cant do moving objects or fleeting subjects with the pan and stitch technique. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) Yes, I state facts matter of factly. If you don't like what I say argue the points and prove me wrong if you think I am wrong. What facts? All you have done is pulled with a bunch of theoretical crap out of the air. I, and a few others, have actually gone out with the equipment in question and used it. And found that your facts quack in all but a few extreme circumstances. Yes, I have opinions like everyone else, but I am prepared to back them up because my stronger opinions are not formed lightly or on hunches. You admit you haven't used a digital SLR, but you are telling people who use them on a daily basis that the things they know work for them won't work, and you somehow think your facts aren't going to get challenged? All of a sudden, you add the caveat that it's your work in question, not the people who are using the equipment. This just doesn't fly very far JC. William Robb
Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) What a load of BS. I just explained to you how I use LF to do seascapes with boats and why pan and stitch wont work and you tell me I have no experience? You memory isnt very good. I don't need to waste my time doing things I know wont work. I'd rather actually being doing things that do work. I don't need to buy a DSLR to know I cant do moving objects or fleeting subjects with the pan and stitch technique. Well, if thats all you do with your view camera, I would dare say that you are severely limited in your picture taking. We've had similar discussions in the past about what will and what won't work, and have been on opposite sides of the fence, your theory saying no, that won't work, my practical experience saying yes it will. William Robb
RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
I can and do static as well, I didn't state the obvious. Thing is, other than extreme panoramics wider than the widest lenses available ( which the scope of this discussion has NOT been limited to), what types of high res photography can you possibly do with the small format pan and stitch technique that someone cant do with normal LF? Regarding the seascapes, Exactly how are you going to do 16 to 25 exposures of a large sail boat that is moving slowy the way I can with a single LF exposure at say 1/30 of a second total exposure? I say my theory is right and your practical application is pure B.S. I can get a nice hi res LF shot, with pan and stitch you DON'T GET that type of shot at all. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!) What a load of BS. I just explained to you how I use LF to do seascapes with boats and why pan and stitch wont work and you tell me I have no experience? You memory isnt very good. I don't need to waste my time doing things I know wont work. I'd rather actually being doing things that do work. I don't need to buy a DSLR to know I cant do moving objects or fleeting subjects with the pan and stitch technique. Well, if thats all you do with your view camera, I would dare say that you are severely limited in your picture taking. We've had similar discussions in the past about what will and what won't work, and have been on opposite sides of the fence, your theory saying no, that won't work, my practical experience saying yes it will. William Robb
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
I've been in engineering for a long time, but I also spent some time working on a factory floor, on an assembly line and in electronics and photographic retail, (not to mention a bunch of higher education in economics). I think I have a very good grasp of the subject. Herb Chong wrote: you talk like someone who hasn't been part of an assembly line operation. they are even more price sensitive. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! That's true of blister packed parts, it's not liner when the part is part of an assembly in a product. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Plus, IBM let them stab them in between the ribs, twice... John C. O'Connell wrote: Microsoft is sucessful IN SPITE of their policies, not because of them. They were just very fortunate to be in the right place at the right time about 25 years ago. JCO From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:47:03 +0200 Try telling that to Microsoft, one of the most unethical and poorly perceived companies ever. A. On 16/9/04 2:04 am, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: False, companies fortune's ride on public perception. When you go down the path they are taking it is a very RISKY business JCO -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Peter, Quite right about the LX, which I should not have included in the list. I'm also wrong about the FAJ lenses, which I had thought were introduced at the time of the MZ-50. However, the MZ-50 was a portent of things to come, and the FAJ lenses were bound to follow. John On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:12:47 -0400, Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Your point about the new Pentax philosophy isn't valid. Pentax IS supporting K/M lenses on the *ist D, and arguably they work rather better than they do on the LX, MX, KM and KX. This is just stupid, the LX is full aperture AE metering. It will give you a suggested reading and then even if your lens doesn't stop down correctly it will still give you the proper exposure. The others are manual mechanical cameras. They offer offer open aperture metering with K M lenses something that the *ist-d doesn't offer no matter what you do. They will give you incorrect exposures if the lens doesn't stop down, but then you have bigger problems anyway. The statement is illogical on it's face. You seem to think that these lenses are unusable. They're not. Since buying my *ist D I have actually gone out and bought MORE M lenses (can't find any K ones at a reasonable price in the UK). I don't think that anyone has said that. You've built a straw man to knock down intentionally or unintentionally. Yes I know that the K mount lenses are usable on the *ist-D, easier to use than m42 lenses on a K body, but the loss of this minor compatibility implies something about the future that's disturbing. The people who have been complaining are venting their disappointment, even some who have the camera or plan to buy one are disappointed. And your screw mount comparison isn't valid either. Screw mount lenses are a pain to use on any K mount camera because the adaptor doesn't stop the lens down. K and M lenses ARE stopped down on the *ist D. I think you misunderstand. It's not that the m42 lenses are easier to use on a K mount camera, they aren't. For the loss of functionality with the screw mount lenses you gained a rapid lens change capability with K mount lenses. Pentax giveth, Pentax taketh away, but in the current situation Pentax simply taketh away. We and the members of Japanese lists complained, a lot, and Pentax produced a software update, kludge actually, that allows the use of K/M lenses on the *ist-D, you should thank us. And why are you arguing this now? Pentax dropped the aperture ring several years ago, and some film cameras don't work at all with K and M lenses, unlike the *ist D. You're out of date, and blaming the wrong camera. Try the MZ-50, which was introduced in 1997. Pentax didn't drop the aperture ring, in fact the new FA-D macro lenses have aperture rings, you sir are the one who's completely wrong. The MZ-30/50/60 were beginners Kit cameras, pretty much PS with the capability of changing lenses. Many were disappointed when the found out that the limitations in their nifty new cameras. I'm arguing now because there have been so many people who have been willfully misunderstanding my and many other's point. I don't know for sure why some others are arguing. John On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:32:48 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they are doing sucks. Less support of legacy products with absolutely nothing gained in the process. This is kinda similar to when they switched from screwmount to K-mount. The SM auto aperure and aperture sensing was lost on the newer K bodies but there WAS a great gain, much better, quicker, mounting and unmounting of the new K lenses. But in this case with the istD, with the K/M ignorance there is NO GAIN, it's all LOSS. Secondly, the second point you make is terrible. People who don't want a non-K/M compatable camera DON'T BUY IT. Of course the ones who do buy it don't mind and arent going to argue otherwise. Thirdly I don't think you did read the paragraph below because it isnt a *istD issue commentary. It's the new major pentax philosophy that I am very disappointed in... JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Or course I read it. But it's only your opinion, and it's not even based on personal experience. IThe vast majority of Pentax users who've bought and used the *istD don't agree with you. On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:58 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Guess you didn't read this: JCO wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: OK, we'd better drop this before Cotty gets in on the act! Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs - what a great camera!)
JCO BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42 in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and faster lens mounting. With the *istD abandoning the K/M aperture setting, THERE IS NO GAIN. ALL LOSS. REPLY: Thats debatable. Some prefer screw mount. I don't think the gain is huge. It is not true that theres no gain with the 'istD mount. For one, it is cheaper. It also sport more precise metering and more precise aperture setting from the body. Pål
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Mark wrote: To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax does read this list, they've undoubtedly come to the conclusion that they've made the correct decisions on lens compatibility. REPLY: True. If Pentax implement full compatibility it will be in top-of-the-line cameras, pretty much like Nikon does. Not in the most price sensitive part of the market. Pål
RE: istDs - what a great camera
JCO wrote: For the price of what a *istD costs I am not going to buy into the argument that full K/M support would have driven up the cost in any signifigant way because K/M support was provided on many budget cameras, pentax made and third parties. REPLY: You forget that the production methods and cost issues are grossly different now than a few years back. The *ist and *istD use a fully electronic (digital) metering and exposure system. As you probably know, electronics are dirt cheap and the camera is sutable for fully atuomatic production and assembly procedures. Precise mechanical systems needed for the old style metering system is expensive. So are labouring costs in Japan these days. A fully compatible K-mount needs two metering systems. As these cameras are competing in the most price sensitive part of the market, and the fact that none of the competition use complex mechanical systems, even small cost increase is out of the question from the manufacturers point of view. Particularly when very few gives a damned anyway (incidentally, those who whine are usually those who wont buy the stuff regardless!). From the *ist developing program Pentax got a feature laden and very competitively priced film slr and a DSLR that co! mpete with the market leader on price and arguably better on packaging and features. Not bad at all. Pål
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Unfortunately its locked to the EV setting at the time you pressed the button. I don't know why they didn't go one step further and allowed a more versatile Av mode while they were mucking with the firmware. I am sorely tempted to see if I might be able to do it myself. Someone posted the uP type used in the camera and I downloaded the instruction set and OS layout. I might try it even if I have to hand assemble it. I've done it before and its not that bad once you get into it. J. C. O'Connell wrote: That's sounds correct. Does the *istD readjust shutter speed if the subject brightness changes or is it locked to whatever speed the reading was when the green button was released? jco -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: With the ist D mode you need to re-meter every time you change the aperure setting not only to shoot but to even see what the shutter speed is going to be. NOT AS GOOD as if they had K/M sensing. I think it is possible. For a particular scene if you have an EV reading X1 at an unknown aperture when pressing the green button, and an EV reading X2 wide open, then if you change scenes, you can estimate the new speed needed to properly expose the pic by taking the new wide open reading of X3 and assuming that the same relationship holds between X1-X2 as it does between X3-X4, where X4 would be the EV at the same aperture you had before. While you dont know the actual aperture, you at least know it relative to the wide open aperture. They could do this in the firmware and have a true AE (Av) mode if they wanted to with K/M lenses. The only time you would have to press the green button again is if you manually changed the aperture again. rg
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: I was afraid you'd start apologising too! Sorry about not being sorry and then being sorry for not paying attention. Hey I can apologise with the best of 'em! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 19/9/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed: Uhhh, what's a botch? In the English I understand, to botch something means to do something clumsily. As a noun, I don't recognize it. you can botch something up, and if you did, it's a botched job, or a botch for short. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Having read quite a few messages with JCO vs. the rest of the PDML on the subject of KM compatibility, I am moved to ask the group what Nikon, the other brand of backward compatibility, has done with their digital SLRs and compatibility with older lenses. I've read just a bit about this in the past regarding film cameras, and had gathered the impression that Nikon is a bit more of a minefield than Pentax in this respect. Is it true of digital as well? -Lon
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Cotty wrote: On 19/9/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed: Uhhh, what's a botch? In the English I understand, to botch something means to do something clumsily. As a noun, I don't recognize it. you can botch something up, and if you did, it's a botched job, or a botch for short. Indeed. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00025589?query_type=wordqueryword=botch Kostas
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
That's true of blister packed parts, it's not liner when the part is part of an assembly in a product. Herb Chong wrote: only $10 at the assembly line means only $100 at the sales counter. Herb... - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:04 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! When manufacturing anything, there are a million decisions to be made on what to put in and what to leave out. The fact that it's only $10.00 is not a good argument in itself, because if you go down that road, there are dozens of other things that are only $10.00 and soon you've got a $5,000 camera. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
- Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Having read quite a few messages with JCO vs. the rest of the PDML on the subject of KM compatibility, I am moved to ask the group what Nikon, the other brand of backward compatibility, has done with their digital SLRs and compatibility with older lenses. I've read just a bit about this in the past regarding film cameras, and had gathered the impression that Nikon is a bit more of a minefield than Pentax in this respect. Is it true of digital as well? Canon is good. Their digital line are just another bunch of EOS cameras, and their compatability issues have pretty much died of old age. Nikon users have to be more careful, and I expect any pre AI lens that wasn't modified is pretty much not even going to mount, much less work. William Robb
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
I think perhaps voiglander or other may do that at some point. Who know, perhaps even Pentax, but I doubt it. You would effectively be making a body that few will buy new lenses for given the abundance of cheap SH ones on ebay. A. On 19/9/04 1:46 am, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still hope that they will come out with a pre A compatible camera, as opposed to one which accommodates pre A, though I am not holding my breath. At the same time, I am not concerned that the way things are right now will ruin my life and cause calamituaous disasters the world over. William Robb
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Come to think of it, the K-mount support era lasted a very very long period of time. The old open apeture screwmount era seems miniscule in comparison. A. On 19/9/04 1:46 am, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still hope that they will come out with a pre A compatible camera, as opposed to one which accommodates pre A, though I am not holding my breath. At the same time, I am not concerned that the way things are right now will ruin my life and cause calamituaous disasters the world over. William Robb - Original Message - From: Antonio Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! I think any reasonable person who bought say a K85.1.8 in 1975 woud be pretty dam chuffed that it works at all with an *istD in 2004, nearly 30 years later. I mean come on, if one were to buy a new Pentax lens today would you reasonably expect it to still work with a new Pentax camera in 2034?
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
I am also very sorry, that Pentax didn't provide full compatibility for K M lenses, which can only be used using stoped down metering (just like my first SLR; Yashica TL Electro X, and many other cameras, without open aperture metering, which I believe was invented by Topcon). Some of my best lenses are K and M lenses, which I use frequently. The gain however, is that Pentax do not have to make a camera body with an aperture simulator anymore. Young people with no K and M lenses, do not have to pay for an aperture simulator, which they will never miss(!?). They will probably want AF anyway, so they woun't even use A-lenses, introduced a little later than the LX (1981) - I believe they came with Pentax Super A in 1983 (?), which was almost exactly 20 years ago, when the *ist D came out. So you could say Pentax supports 20 year old lenses, although this support is limited (manual settings require stoped down metering). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. september 2004 01:16 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: NO, YOU DON'T GET IT. I never said pentax changed their lens mounts, they changed their new camera to ignore the K/M aperture cam and have LESS features then the lenses can do. Big difference. If something was gained for abandoning these features it would be one thing but nothing was gained, it's ALL LOSS. In your _most_ humble opinion, you mean--and even before you see or hold or try the camera. keith Pentax wants you to replace perfectly good and capable lenses. That is called PLANNED obsolescence, which is a very unethical business practice. JCO [...]
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
Correction - this should have been: I'm sorry that Pentax *ist D doesn't provide full compatibility for setting the aperture manually on PENTAX lenses. Manual aperture setting on the lens does not support auto-exposure, but reuires simi-automatic exposure, with stoped down metering (pressing the green button), provided firmware up-grade 1.1 or 1.11 is installed! Cheers Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. september 2004 10:10 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: istDs - what a great camera! I am also very sorry, that Pentax didn't provide full compatibility for K M lenses, which can only be used using stoped down metering (just like my first SLR; Yashica TL Electro X, and many other cameras, without open aperture metering, which I believe was invented by Topcon). Some of my best lenses are K and M lenses, which I use frequently. The gain however, is that Pentax do not have to make a camera body with an aperture simulator anymore. Young people with no K and M lenses, do not have to pay for an aperture simulator, which they will never miss(!?). They will probably want AF anyway, so they woun't even use A-lenses, introduced a little later than the LX (1981) - I believe they came with Pentax Super A in 1983 (?), which was almost exactly 20 years ago, when the *ist D came out. So you could say Pentax supports 20 year old lenses, although this support is limited (manual settings require stoped down metering). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. september 2004 01:16 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: NO, YOU DON'T GET IT. I never said pentax changed their lens mounts, they changed their new camera to ignore the K/M aperture cam and have LESS features then the lenses can do. Big difference. If something was gained for abandoning these features it would be one thing but nothing was gained, it's ALL LOSS. In your _most_ humble opinion, you mean--and even before you see or hold or try the camera. keith Pentax wants you to replace perfectly good and capable lenses. That is called PLANNED obsolescence, which is a very unethical business practice. JCO [...]
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses. Yes, but that's not what I was responding to or saying I agree with. Just read below, since you are quoting. that opinions based on pure speculation are not valid. You have to shoot with it for a week or two, then decide. Again, I never questioned that. I did some sniping below so you can see what my point is. Who had noticed that the MZ-60 does not work even with A-series lenses? Pentax *went of their way* to disable the use of these lenses. Where does this stop? Kostas On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60. I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which is why I am nor saying to buy). I am not keen to recommend even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant future. Kostas
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Kostas, What exactly in my emails is inaccurate? Please read on. On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now. Why are you complaining now? They have been at it since the MZ-50. The MZ-30 was a step back, but The People found a way to use pre-A lenses (with limitations). When they produced the MZ-60 they made things even worse (no pre-F lenses usable). They did this so well that I had not seen a single mention of that in the list until last week. I downloaded the manual from pentaxusa last week and could not believe my eyes. Perhaps I should read it again. By the way, if Pentax thought I would buy new lenses to go with the -50, try again. I bought another body. Only no decent mid-range body was available new, so I bought used. 2 years on, I have 20-odd lenses, 3 of which are AF; I have even sold the FA28-80 that came with the -50. They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). They still are. Look at the new macro lenses and the fact that (like it or not) K and M lenses can be used in some sort of aperture priority straightforwardly. I understand what you are saying, but your point is too fine for me (and I use Av extensively). As far as I am concerned, I can use put the camera in a mode where *I* decide about the aperture and *the camera* decides about the shutter speed. Sure, if I forget to flick the green button there will be a problem (if the light has changed). I take Paul's opinion that it's so easy that one gets to do it more often than necessary; I do that with the -5n's DOF-preview all the time, it's a mannerism. I am not too sure about the situation with the Ds, but I will wait and see. I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. The reason why the camera is expensive is to do with the fact that Pentax cannot afford to sell is as a loss leader. It's a matter of magnitude. Finally, you have convinced me that there is no financial issue as much as others have convinced me that there is: not at all. My data (MZ-shambles) imply that Pentax are shafting us on purpose, but the fact that we are on the same side of the fence is coincidence. If you have the money and the urge to go digital, seek a shop that will let you play with it or ask for a volunteer in the list to spend an afternoon with you and his *ist-D. I am convinced that if you see past purism, and if you consider your options, you will like the camera. However, just like you, I would like Pentax to come up with a replacement to the *ist-D featuring the bloody lever. Sure, people will come up with dream on statements, I don't care. If they want to phase them out, let them support the dual interface of the Z1-p, sell crappy lenses without the ring and good ones with it, and let nature take its course. Oh, and no more 60mm equiv crap please, if there was a point in this focal length, Pentax would have one in their line already. It's not like we are swamped with available lenses or anything. Kostas
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Nick Clark wrote: I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers than with Pentax. Aye, but for how long? The guarantee you get in that department is exactly the same as the one you'll get with every other manufacturer on the planet. And not just of photographic equipment.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote: Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right now, and get back to us on that one. Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released. When it comes to brand loyalty, it's what's in the family that counts. This camera cost almost twice as much as the -S, which it effectively replaced in the Pentax line-up as the choice of the Pentax well-heeled/professional/very enthusiastic amateur. What was the cost of developing the botch? Kostas
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote: Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right now, and get back to us on that one. Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released. Well, no. I think if you check, the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS1 were the leading edge at the time, and twice or more the price. William Robb
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote:
Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right
now, and get back to us on that one.
Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released.
When it comes to brand loyalty, it's what's in the family that counts.
This camera cost almost twice as much as the -S, which it effectively
replaced in the Pentax line-up as the choice of the Pentax
well-heeled/professional/very enthusiastic amateur.
What was the cost of developing the botch?
Kostas
Uhhh, what's a botch?
In the English I understand, to botch something means to do something clumsily.
As a noun, I don't recognize it.
Unless it's a misspelling for a female dog... {shrug}
keith
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
I assume he's refering to the firmware update and green button.
Combination of patch and kluge.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote:
Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right
now, and get back to us on that one.
Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released.
When it comes to brand loyalty, it's what's in the family that counts.
This camera cost almost twice as much as the -S, which it effectively
replaced in the Pentax line-up as the choice of the Pentax
well-heeled/professional/very enthusiastic amateur.
What was the cost of developing the botch?
Kostas
Uhhh, what's a botch?
In the English I understand, to botch something means to do
something clumsily.
As a noun, I don't recognize it.
Unless it's a misspelling for a female dog... {shrug}
keith
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Well the fact that they are still successfull , 25 years on, is indicative that it is their policies work, and that their success is not due to chance as you argue. Monopoly is a game you have to play to win from the start. A. On 17/9/04 11:53 pm, John C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft is sucessful IN SPITE of their policies, not because of them. They were just very fortunate to be in the right place at the right time about 25 years ago. JCO From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:47:03 +0200 Try telling that to Microsoft, one of the most unethical and poorly perceived companies ever. A. On 16/9/04 2:04 am, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: False, companies fortune's ride on public perception. When you go down the path they are taking it is a very RISKY business JCO
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the people with many pre-A lenses that are interested in a DSLR for right now are a tiny number of people. the software fix satisfied most of them. spending a lot of money to satisfy a few hundred of people is a waste of money. with Pentax looking now to lose money on the Imaging Product division this coming year, that will be 3 out of 4 years in the red for the division. you won't get one because you can't push a green button once in a while. your loss. To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax does read this list, they've undoubtedly come to the conclusion that they've made the correct decisions on lens compatibility.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
i was being generous. Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax does read this list, they've undoubtedly come to the conclusion that they've made the correct decisions on lens compatibility.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now.They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). The fact they did not change their mount when AF came out was great, unlike minolta and canon did, but what was the point of abandoning very SIMPLE K/M support now when there is no new lenses or mount changes? NONE except to attempt to sell new lenses that I can seeAnd if a cheap part removal saved costs, where is it in the price? Aint there! I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. This K/M aperture ignorance is absurd in a top line camera from them that isn't even price competitive and that absurdity makes me no longer trust them at all. The sad part is Both the K and the M lenses are better made (longer life) than the A series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy. They are now in the disposable camera market. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the people with many pre-A lenses that are interested in a DSLR for right now are a tiny number of people. the software fix satisfied most of them. spending a lot of money to satisfy a few hundred of people is a waste of money. with Pentax looking now to lose money on the Imaging Product division this coming year, that will be 3 out of 4 years in the red for the division. you won't get one because you can't push a green button once in a while. your loss. To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax does read this list, they've undoubtedly come to the conclusion that they've made the correct decisions on lens compatibility.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Pentax didn't screw me. I'm very happy with the *ist D. When I bought my first one, I owned only K and M lenses. I was so happy with the way the *ist D worked with these lenses that I went out and bought a second *istD. I also bought an FA lens and a DA lens, which is exactly what Pentax had hoped for. Their strategy worked with me and many other Pentax users. In fact, I would guess that at least 60% of those list members who owned six or more Pentax lenses have already purchased the *ist D and many of the others plan to do so. If you don't, Pentax won't give a hoot. Paul On Sep 17, 2004, at 9:09 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The answer is Pentax is screwing the very people most likely to buy a PENTAX DSLR, those that already had plenty of Pentax lenses. If I was starting from scratch I would go Canon, not pentax. the only reason to go pentax is legacy product support which they arent doing. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! the answer is self-evident then. you aren't worth it to Pentax. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera! Then the aperture sensing cam must be about a dollar part, not ten because many $150 cameras had it. Secondly, even if the cam made the istD SELL for a $100 more, it would be well worth it in terms of value added TO ME and would pay for itself on the first good K/M lens it restored full function to.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
Guess you didn't read this: JCO wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now.They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). The fact they did not change their mount when AF came out was great, unlike minolta and canon did, but what was the point of abandoning very SIMPLE K/M support now when there is no new lenses or mount changes? NONE except to attempt to sell new lenses that I can seeAnd if a cheap part removal saved costs, where is it in the price? Aint there! I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. This K/M aperture ignorance is absurd in a top line camera from them that isn't even price competitive and that absurdity makes me no longer trust them at all. The sad part is Both the K and the M lenses are better made (longer life) than the A series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy. They are now in the disposable camera market. JCO = It's not just the simple issue of K/M aperure setting support, it is their all new policy on product support in general that is the real issue for me.I would not buy ANY new product from them expecting to get long term use out of it any more. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Pentax didn't screw me. I'm very happy with the *ist D. When I bought my first one, I owned only K and M lenses. I was so happy with the way the *ist D worked with these lenses that I went out and bought a second *istD. I also bought an FA lens and a DA lens, which is exactly what Pentax had hoped for. Their strategy worked with me and many other Pentax users. In fact, I would guess that at least 60% of those list members who owned six or more Pentax lenses have already purchased the *ist D and many of the others plan to do so. If you don't, Pentax won't give a hoot. Paul On Sep 17, 2004, at 9:09 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The answer is Pentax is screwing the very people most likely to buy a PENTAX DSLR, those that already had plenty of Pentax lenses. If I was starting from scratch I would go Canon, not pentax. the only reason to go pentax is legacy product support which they arent doing. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! the answer is self-evident then. you aren't worth it to Pentax. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera! Then the aperture sensing cam must be about a dollar part, not ten because many $150 cameras had it. Secondly, even if the cam made the istD SELL for a $100 more, it would be well worth it in terms of value added TO ME and would pay for itself on the first good K/M lens it restored full function to.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Or course I read it. But it's only your opinion, and it's not even based on personal experience. IThe vast majority of Pentax users who've bought and used the *istD don't agree with you. On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:58 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Guess you didn't read this: JCO wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now.They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). The fact they did not change their mount when AF came out was great, unlike minolta and canon did, but what was the point of abandoning very SIMPLE K/M support now when there is no new lenses or mount changes? NONE except to attempt to sell new lenses that I can seeAnd if a cheap part removal saved costs, where is it in the price? Aint there! I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. This K/M aperture ignorance is absurd in a top line camera from them that isn't even price competitive and that absurdity makes me no longer trust them at all. The sad part is Both the K and the M lenses are better made (longer life) than the A series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy. They are now in the disposable camera market. JCO === = = It's not just the simple issue of K/M aperure setting support, it is their all new policy on product support in general that is the real issue for me.I would not buy ANY new product from them expecting to get long term use out of it any more. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Pentax didn't screw me. I'm very happy with the *ist D. When I bought my first one, I owned only K and M lenses. I was so happy with the way the *ist D worked with these lenses that I went out and bought a second *istD. I also bought an FA lens and a DA lens, which is exactly what Pentax had hoped for. Their strategy worked with me and many other Pentax users. In fact, I would guess that at least 60% of those list members who owned six or more Pentax lenses have already purchased the *ist D and many of the others plan to do so. If you don't, Pentax won't give a hoot. Paul On Sep 17, 2004, at 9:09 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The answer is Pentax is screwing the very people most likely to buy a PENTAX DSLR, those that already had plenty of Pentax lenses. If I was starting from scratch I would go Canon, not pentax. the only reason to go pentax is legacy product support which they arent doing. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! the answer is self-evident then. you aren't worth it to Pentax. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera! Then the aperture sensing cam must be about a dollar part, not ten because many $150 cameras had it. Secondly, even if the cam made the istD SELL for a $100 more, it would be well worth it in terms of value added TO ME and would pay for itself on the first good K/M lens it restored full function to.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
If they abandoned K/M aperture setting for no good reason what exactly make you think they wont abandon other product's features shortly , later products, products you now own or might buy? Why trust them after this? It's a total about-face in policy from their entire previous history JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60. I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which is why I am nor saying to buy). I am not keen to recommend even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant future. Kostas
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
They're not stupid. They'll continue to support those products and functions that matter. The aperture cam doesn't make a hoot of a difference. The *istD works fine without it. But you don't know that. You haven't tried it. On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:14 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If they abandoned K/M aperture setting for no good reason what exactly make you think they wont abandon other product's features shortly , later products, products you now own or might buy? Why trust them after this? It's a total about-face in policy from their entire previous history JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Again, those who are upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses are, for the most part, those who haven't tried it. Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60. I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which is why I am nor saying to buy). I am not keen to recommend even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant future. Kostas
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they are doing sucks. Less support of legacy products with absolutely nothing gained in the process. This is kinda similar to when they switched from screwmount to K-mount. The SM auto aperure and aperture sensing was lost on the newer K bodies but there WAS a great gain, much better, quicker, mounting and unmounting of the new K lenses. But in this case with the istD, with the K/M ignorance there is NO GAIN, it's all LOSS. Secondly, the second point you make is terrible. People who don't want a non-K/M compatable camera DON'T BUY IT. Of course the ones who do buy it don't mind and arent going to argue otherwise. Thirdly I don't think you did read the paragraph below because it isnt a *istD issue commentary. It's the new major pentax philosophy that I am very disappointed in... JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Or course I read it. But it's only your opinion, and it's not even based on personal experience. IThe vast majority of Pentax users who've bought and used the *istD don't agree with you. On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:58 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Guess you didn't read this: JCO wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now.They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). The fact they did not change their mount when AF came out was great, unlike minolta and canon did, but what was the point of abandoning very SIMPLE K/M support now when there is no new lenses or mount changes? NONE except to attempt to sell new lenses that I can seeAnd if a cheap part removal saved costs, where is it in the price? Aint there! I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. This K/M aperture ignorance is absurd in a top line camera from them that isn't even price competitive and that absurdity makes me no longer trust them at all. The sad part is Both the K and the M lenses are better made (longer life) than the A series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy. They are now in the disposable camera market. JCO === = = It's not just the simple issue of K/M aperure setting support, it is their all new policy on product support in general that is the real issue for me.I would not buy ANY new product from them expecting to get long term use out of it any more. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Pentax didn't screw me. I'm very happy with the *ist D. When I bought my first one, I owned only K and M lenses. I was so happy with the way the *ist D worked with these lenses that I went out and bought a second *istD. I also bought an FA lens and a DA lens, which is exactly what Pentax had hoped for. Their strategy worked with me and many other Pentax users. In fact, I would guess that at least 60% of those list members who owned six or more Pentax lenses have already purchased the *ist D and many of the others plan to do so. If you don't, Pentax won't give a hoot. Paul On Sep 17, 2004, at 9:09 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The answer is Pentax is screwing the very people most likely to buy a PENTAX DSLR, those that already had plenty of Pentax lenses. If I was starting from scratch I would go Canon, not pentax. the only reason to go pentax is legacy product support which they arent doing. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! the answer is self-evident then. you aren't worth it to Pentax. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera! Then the aperture sensing cam must be about a dollar part, not ten because many $150 cameras had it. Secondly, even if the cam made the istD SELL for a $100
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
WRONG WRONG WRONG. When they went to K, they HAD to change the mount to provide bayonet mounting and the new mount was better. THEY GAINED A NEW BETTER MOUNTING SYSTEM. There is NO new gain with the istD mount, just loss of K/M AE. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Seems to me they are doing what they have always done - greater support for newer products, less support (i.e. Adapters or green buttons) for older products. At least they provide support. A. On 18/9/04 2:32 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they are doing sucks.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Paul, JCO is not alone. I still own a couple of Pentax film cameras and lenses, they work just fine, I'll probably keep one of them around for the fun of it, but there's no more of my money to P. They are going in a direction that's not exactly to my like, and since they decided I'm legacy user to be halfassed supported I also decided to let them be legacy and look elsewhere. This is actually good. If the best support for legacy lenses in the industry (which is, let's face it, what Pentax provides) isn't good enough for you, then it's probably best both for you and for Pentax that you each go your separate ways. Anyone who's ever worked in retail knows of customers who are very hard to please. A wise businessman tries to keep them all happy in order to retain their business, but there are a select few who are so high maintenance that they end up increasing costs more than the profit they bring in can justify. We've had customers like this at every retail operation where I've ever worked. Eventually you just have to accept that the business relationship with this customer isn't working out and that it's best for *both* parties if they follow through on their repeated threats to take their business elsewhere. There is really no reason for hard feelings in this matter but it rarely works out that way. The customer usually gets angry and claims that he brings in valuable business. If it's pointed out that his business increases costs more than profits, he (it's almost always a male) will claim that he constantly recommends your business to friends and acquaintances and thus brings in money indirectly. This is almost never true in my experience. You just need to calm down, sever your ties with the business or company that has dissatisfied you and move on.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Do calm down. John On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:42:40 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too. face it the *istD does not offer true AE with K/M. It offers a mode, which I guess you could call one shot AE, that is better than manual but much less than conventional true AE. JCO -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Actualy, you do get shutter speed confirmation both in the viewfinder and on the top-plate. Your anger is based on simple ignorance. John On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:08:43 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be fine for you, but it aint AE. It wasn't done this way for the last 30 years because it isnt as good as AE. What you are saying is that a mode where you have to take a manual step every time before you expose is as good as one that fully automatic because it becomes second nature. Its still slower than not having to take those readings at all and just shooting away. Not only that, it is more vunerable to human error if you forget to remeter the scene each time unless there is a shutter lockout after one exposure which in itself would be another disadvantage compared to true AE. I also bet you don't get indication of camera selected shutter speed until you press the button either. Nearly all of the Pentax cameras with AE going all the way back to the ES/ESII did that too, something impossible with the *istD. When the camera senses the K/M aperture setting you not only can get true AE, you get continous and immediate feedback from the camera as to the shutter speed/ aperture combination. With the ist D mode you need to re-meter every time you change the aperure setting not only to shoot but to even see what the shutter speed is going to be. NOT AS GOOD as if they had K/M sensing. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses. You said, I am with him on this one. Interestingly enough, I was not pleased with what I read about the *istD and its workaround for K and M lenses when I first read about it. But I really needed a digital body, so I bought one. Once I used it, I realized that it was just fine. In fact it's better than fine, it's very good. The green button, as I've said, becomes an automatic, just like cocking the shutter once was, only easier. That's why I've said that opinions based on pure speculation are not valid. You have to shoot with it for a week or two, then decide. Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:37 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: Again, those who are upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses are, for the most part, those who haven't tried it. Where in the post you quoted below in its uncommented entirety do I write that I am upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses? Kostas Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60. I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, which is why I am nor saying to buy). I am not keen to recommend even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the sucker that I was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Not exactly, the *istD provides digital capture, which its predecesors did not. To some that is a big gain. A. On 18/9/04 2:51 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42 in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and faster lens mounting. With the *istD abandoning the K/M aperture setting, THERE IS NO GAIN. ALL LOSS.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Paul posted: They're not stupid. They'll continue to support those products and functions that matter. The aperture cam doesn't make a hoot of a difference. The *istD works fine without it. But you don't know that. You haven't tried it. Paul, I agree with you entirely about the *ist D working fine with the fix. However, JCO says that Pentax can't be trusted to keep compatibility. The only thing wrong with THAT statement of his, in my opinion, is that he seems to be tying it firmly to the original incompatibility with the *ist D and K M lenses, and I think he's picking the wrong evidence. I think it dates from the incompatible film bodies, which were introduced a few years ago; and then the aperture-ring-less lenses. To me, I'm not buying the lenses that are incompatible with my cameras, and I'm not buying the bodies that can't use my lenses. And those exceptions still leave more than enough gear that I can use, or that I even want, so that I'm not at all inconvenienced. I was pretty mad about the introduction of the ZX-50 and what it meant, and even more unhappy when the trend was confirmed with three more crippled cameras and the crippled lenses. But in light of the above - - I don't have to scrap my entire system, and I can't afford to anyway, and I'm not going to. ERN
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
Pentax DO support the legacy products fare better than most other manufacturers. My M and K lenses work perfectly on my MX and KX which is what they were intended for. They also work perfectly on my MZ-S, and very well on the *istD. They don't work well enough on my wife's *ist, but she has newer lenses that are fine. I think the reason Pentax dropped the aperture coupler is less to do with saving the cost on the body, which as others have pointed out is minimal, but more to do with saving the cost on new lenses. I bet it's pretty uneconomical to put the aperture ring and mechanism into lenses these days, so it had to go. Without the mechanical aperture ring on lenses, what's the point of a coupler on the body. I reckon they can now harmonise the range, and that all new cameras and lenses won't have mechanical aperture mechanisms. I know they released a couple of new macros with it recently, but I bet they've been a while in the design stage. I am perfectly happy with their strategy. The cameras feel so much better than the opposition. Just hold a Pentax as they used to say. Nick -
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Hey Mark, Support for legacy lenses is just a small part of the picture. Remember that we're speaking of going from film to digital. It's a different world. I am not even sure that I want a SLR type of camera. I suspect that what I really want is a Canon G7 with fast response and fancy new low noise sensor. IMHO P is not going there any time soon. But keeping it to SLRs, I see no reason for me to buy an *istD now instead of a 20D this Xmas. I would save a couple hundred dollars on lenses and price difference, but then it would be a halfassed solution and I'd be left lusting after what I really wanted, while desperately trying to buy lenses that P doesn't want to make and/or sell. So why not pay the extra dollars and solve it once for ever. Mark Roberts wrote: This is actually good. If the best support for legacy lenses in the industry (which is, let's face it, what Pentax provides) isn't good enough for you, then it's probably best both for you and for Pentax that you each go your separate ways.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
JCO said, among other things: face it the *istD does not offer true AE with K/M. It offers a mode, which I guess you could call one shot AE, that is better than manual but much less than conventional true AE. You could also call it Hyper Manual. ERN
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and on the fly. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
You never had to take any readings with any Pentax camera that supported AE. all you had to do was fire the shutter. NO reading was ever necessary. Fire Fire Fire. That is what AE is automatic exposure, takes lighting, film speed and aperture into account at all times and fully automatically. No readings were needed. Fully Automatic shutter speed. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! I dont think anyone is claiming that it supports AE in the same way as on older cameras. In any event on my Super A in AE mode the sutter speed is only updated to take into account a new apeture setting when I depress the shutter button slightly and hence turn on the light meter. If I leave it for a few more seconds the light meter turns itself off and I have to depress the button again. Admitedly when activated it then responds automatically to any apeture changes, but it is not that hard to dpress the green button on the *istD to do this manually. A. On 18/9/04 3:42 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras have for the last quarter century. A screwmount lens will work just as nicely as a k or m lens. In fact, I think I'll go out and shoot some digital pics with my Super Takumar 35/3.5. Sounds like a fun Saturday project. Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Antonio wrote: I dont think anyone is claiming that it supports AE in the same way as on older cameras. In any event on my Super A in AE mode the sutter speed is only updated to take into account a new apeture setting when I depress the shutter button slightly and hence turn on the light meter. If I leave it for a few more seconds the light meter turns itself off and I have to depress the button again. Admitedly when activated it then responds automatically to any apeture changes, but it is not that hard to dpress the green button on the *istD to do this manually. A. On 18/9/04 3:42 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers than with Pentax. Nick -Original Message- From: Caveman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18/09/04 13:48:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! No Paul, JCO is not alone. I still own a couple of Pentax film cameras and lenses, they work just fine, I'll probably keep one of them around for the fun of it, but there's no more of my money to P. They are going in a direction that's not exactly to my like, and since they decided I'm legacy user to be halfassed supported I also decided to let them be legacy and look elsewhere. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now that I understand what they did with the MZ-60.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Not true, the gain is that you dont have to include a 1970's type manual apeture cam as new lenses can comunicate with the camera bodies electronically. Therefore you get lighter, les complicated lenses and mounts, which have less moving parts and hence less to go wrong. I would say that is an improvment over a metal rod sticking out the back of the lens. A. On 18/9/04 4:54 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eyes rolling.! The abandonment of K/M aperture setting sensing has nothing to do with digital capture. They did not have to give up on K/M to do digital. If they did that would be one thing, but that is not the case. So like I said, NOTHING was gained in favor of the abandonment of K/M. Not at all like the M42 to K design change where they DID get something good in return for loss of compatibility of the old lenses: much faster lens changing. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Not exactly, the *istD provides digital capture, which its predecesors did not. To some that is a big gain. A. On 18/9/04 2:51 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42 in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and faster lens mounting. With the *istD abandoning the K/M aperture setting, THERE IS NO GAIN. ALL LOSS.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Cotty found the solution ;-) Nick Clark wrote: I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers than with Pentax.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Yes, so I hear. I found using screwmounts on my super a a bit of a pain, but the process sounds a whole lot more user friendly on the *istD. A. On 18/9/04 5:05 pm, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras have for the last quarter century. A screwmount lens will work just as nicely as a k or m lens. In fact, I think I'll go out and shoot some digital pics with my Super Takumar 35/3.5. Sounds like a fun Saturday project. Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Antonio wrote: I dont think anyone is claiming that it supports AE in the same way as on older cameras. In any event on my Super A in AE mode the sutter speed is only updated to take into account a new apeture setting when I depress the shutter button slightly and hence turn on the light meter. If I leave it for a few more seconds the light meter turns itself off and I have to depress the button again. Admitedly when activated it then responds automatically to any apeture changes, but it is not that hard to dpress the green button on the *istD to do this manually. A. On 18/9/04 3:42 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
How is it supporting screwmounts any better than a whole host of K bodies that would work in true AE stopdown mode with screwmounts? JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras have for the last quarter century. A screwmount lens will work just as nicely as a k or m lens. In fact, I think I'll go out and shoot some digital pics with my Super Takumar 35/3.5. Sounds like a fun Saturday project. Paul On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Antonio wrote: I dont think anyone is claiming that it supports AE in the same way as on older cameras. In any event on my Super A in AE mode the sutter speed is only updated to take into account a new apeture setting when I depress the shutter button slightly and hence turn on the light meter. If I leave it for a few more seconds the light meter turns itself off and I have to depress the button again. Admitedly when activated it then responds automatically to any apeture changes, but it is not that hard to dpress the green button on the *istD to do this manually. A. On 18/9/04 3:42 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause pretty damn good. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! You seem iretrevably stuck in the past. In any event, nobody is saying it is a better way of operating, clearly full K/M support wouldd be welcomed by most pentax users who have these lenses and wish to use them. But given that is not going to happen, the support offered at present is pretty dam good. A. On 18/9/04 4:59 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and on the fly. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
EYES ROLLING AGAIN. The inclusion of the cheap simple aperture sensing cam in the body does not preclude removal of mechanical linkage in new lenses. Both can be done. The miniscule weight savings of the removal of the aperure cam sensor certainly does not outweigh the abiiliy to open aperure meter and AE with the K/M lenses. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Not true, the gain is that you dont have to include a 1970's type manual apeture cam as new lenses can comunicate with the camera bodies electronically. Therefore you get lighter, les complicated lenses and mounts, which have less moving parts and hence less to go wrong. I would say that is an improvment over a metal rod sticking out the back of the lens. A. On 18/9/04 4:54 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eyes rolling.! The abandonment of K/M aperture setting sensing has nothing to do with digital capture. They did not have to give up on K/M to do digital. If they did that would be one thing, but that is not the case. So like I said, NOTHING was gained in favor of the abandonment of K/M. Not at all like the M42 to K design change where they DID get something good in return for loss of compatibility of the old lenses: much faster lens changing. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Not exactly, the *istD provides digital capture, which its predecesors did not. To some that is a big gain. A. On 18/9/04 2:51 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42 in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and faster lens mounting. With the *istD abandoning the K/M aperture setting, THERE IS NO GAIN. ALL LOSS.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Hi, Jostein wrote: Btw, I happened upon a band of reindeer hunters when out photographing last week-end. It was they who told me about the radioactivity. In some parts, the Tchernobyl aftermath is still an issue. Sheep having grazed freely in the mountains are still controlled before slaughtered. In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the gut and deposited in the field. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of this practice since our foot mouth epidemic fiasco. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Jim Apilado wrote: I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will sense the change in light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it. If you have to continually press the green button for changing conditions, it becomes toilsome. No more toilsome than pressing the shutter button halfway down for the focus to kick in! keith Jim A. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:05:41 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras have for the last quarter century. A screwmount lens will work just as nicely as a k or m lens. In fact, I think I'll go out and shoot some digital pics with my Super Takumar 35/3.5. Sounds like a fun Saturday project. Paul [...]
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
I know and understand exposure modes. What they are offering for K/M is not the same as or as good as true AE. Period. If it was there never would have been aperture cams on K/M lenses in the first place. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they are doing sucks. [...] Therein lies the entirety of JCO's philosophy. Sorry, JC, I can't agree with such a head-in-the-sand attitude. If you haven't handled or used the camera, the simple fact is, you do NOT know. But you can't see beyond your nose. keith whaley JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Or course I read it. But it's only your opinion, and it's not even based on personal experience. IThe vast majority of Pentax users who've bought and used the *istD don't agree with you. On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:58 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Guess you didn't read this: JCO wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it [...]
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. It is a first in their history and goes against everything they always stood for in supporting legacy products when possible. They certainly could have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. I would not put anything past them after this. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Jim Apilado mused: I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will sense the change in light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it. If you have to continually press the green button for changing conditions, it becomes toilsome. Jim A. But, as those of us who actually own the camera know, you don't have to do this. If you want auto-exposure, just put the camera in Av. With a real K lent this is limiting, because you only get full-aperture operation. But with a screw-mount lens and the K-mount adapter you end up with stop down operation, so the metering (and Av mode) work fine.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Hi, Keith Whaley wrote: Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. It is already the case that _all_ my present lenses will not function the same way on the newest range of cameras. The _best_ I can hope for, at present, is a workaround that will not suit most of what I do. Not being someone who generally rants, raves and blithers on [what am I doing here? 8-)] the only thing I can do (and it is an _active_) is not buy. Just possibly, the message will get through. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 18/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: Do calm down. John GO BRITS :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connell wrote: I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. It is a first in their history and goes against everything they always stood for in supporting legacy products when possible. They certainly could have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. ...[V]ery easily? How do you know they could have? Isn't it even possible that their design engineers looked at the possibility and veto'd it, for some reason they didn't choose to reveal to the general public? Don't you suppose there could have been one or more reasons for the exclusion that are not obvious to you? It's entirely possible it was a higher-up management decision, and it didn't need a lot of justification. Big boss says do it, you do it. But which ever one it might have been, we really don't know, and until we do, all else is supposition. Typical of human nature, we choose to assign nefarious, perverse reasons for the decision. Smacks of paranoia... I don't think they're trying to tick off all their old customers. But, they do have a company to run, don't they. Decisions need to be made, some of which may not be well-accepted by the miniscule M-42 crowd or the non-auto K-mount folks. All that is supposition, too. But, if you're going to make supposition the order of the day, you'll have to broaden the blame, and assign some more weight to pure short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which we are simply not privy to... keith This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. I would not put anything past them after this. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck in the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support lenses made in 1975. Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do so. 1970s lenses would canabalise any new lens sales they can make now. As to the regression business obviously as far as K/M lenses the support is inferior - nobody is disagreeing with you on that score so please turn off the caps lock. Support on the new bodies is clearly not what it was iin the past. However, you must admit that the new lenses and new bodies are a step forward. The new coupling mechanism *is* an improvement over the old 1970s metal rod way of comunicating between lens and camera. It is *progress* and it will allow for the development of better things in future. A On 18/9/04 5:36 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause pretty damn good. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! You seem iretrevably stuck in the past. In any event, nobody is saying it is a better way of operating, clearly full K/M support wouldd be welcomed by most pentax users who have these lenses and wish to use them. But given that is not going to happen, the support offered at present is pretty dam good. A. On 18/9/04 4:59 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and on the fly. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 18/9/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty found the solution ;-) Nick Clark wrote: I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers than with Pentax. Hmm. I did what I did because I enjoy the old Pentax lenses and the quality is first rate. Looking back, I switched away from Pentax because the *ist D was still over a year away and I did not want to wait, and because I believed an 'upgrade path' to a high end DSLR was not going to be forthcoming. Since the *ist D has been out, I have felt no regret. If I had waited for the *ist D I would have been disappointed and switched right away. My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the 70s and 80s. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice. Having said that, I would definitely consider an *ist Ds and a wide prime for the pocket! Way cool. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the gut and deposited in the field. I wondered what that foul smell was. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
20 years of film cameras that fully supported both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need to show it can be done. I know it can be done because I could design it myself it is so simple. all it is is simple exposure compensation, so many stops more exposure per degree of rotation of the cam. Don't be apologizing for what they have done pretending there was some reason when it is obvious there was no technical reason to do. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. It is a first in their history and goes against everything they always stood for in supporting legacy products when possible. They certainly could have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. ...[V]ery easily? How do you know they could have? Isn't it even possible that their design engineers looked at the possibility and veto'd it, for some reason they didn't choose to reveal to the general public? Don't you suppose there could have been one or more reasons for the exclusion that are not obvious to you? It's entirely possible it was a higher-up management decision, and it didn't need a lot of justification. Big boss says do it, you do it. But which ever one it might have been, we really don't know, and until we do, all else is supposition. Typical of human nature, we choose to assign nefarious, perverse reasons for the decision. Smacks of paranoia... I don't think they're trying to tick off all their old customers. But, they do have a company to run, don't they. Decisions need to be made, some of which may not be well-accepted by the miniscule M-42 crowd or the non-auto K-mount folks. All that is supposition, too. But, if you're going to make supposition the order of the day, you'll have to broaden the blame, and assign some more weight to pure short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which we are simply not privy to... keith This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. I would not put anything past them after this. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Cotty wrote: [...] My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the 70s and 80s. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice. Having said that, I would definitely consider an *ist Ds and a wide prime for the pocket! Way cool. WAYyyy cool, sir! What's 24mm (35mm equivalent talk) in digi-speak, for the DS? Seems to me to get 24mm coverage you'd need a 31mm lens on the DS. keith Cheers, Cotty
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
Your whole point is pointless when they can easily support K/M AND A,F lenses. the A and F lenses are not hindered in any way by the K/M support. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck in the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support lenses made in 1975. Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do so. 1970s lenses would canabalise any new lens sales they can make now. As to the regression business obviously as far as K/M lenses the support is inferior - nobody is disagreeing with you on that score so please turn off the caps lock. Support on the new bodies is clearly not what it was iin the past. However, you must admit that the new lenses and new bodies are a step forward. The new coupling mechanism *is* an improvement over the old 1970s metal rod way of comunicating between lens and camera. It is *progress* and it will allow for the development of better things in future. A On 18/9/04 5:36 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause pretty damn good. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! You seem iretrevably stuck in the past. In any event, nobody is saying it is a better way of operating, clearly full K/M support wouldd be welcomed by most pentax users who have these lenses and wish to use them. But given that is not going to happen, the support offered at present is pretty dam good. A. On 18/9/04 4:59 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and on the fly. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Cotty wrote: On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the gut and deposited in the field. I wondered what that foul smell was. Hot Gorse, of course! g keith Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
1. How can a point be pointless? 2. Yes, Pentax *could* support these lenses better, that is correct. 3. They chose not to some time ago. Get over it. A. On 18/9/04 9:34 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole point is pointless when they can easily support K/M AND A,F lenses. the A and F lenses are not hindered in any way by the K/M support. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck in the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support lenses made in 1975. Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do so. 1970s lenses would canabalise any new lens sales they can make now. As to the regression business obviously as far as K/M lenses the support is inferior - nobody is disagreeing with you on that score so please turn off the caps lock. Support on the new bodies is clearly not what it was iin the past. However, you must admit that the new lenses and new bodies are a step forward. The new coupling mechanism *is* an improvement over the old 1970s metal rod way of comunicating between lens and camera. It is *progress* and it will allow for the development of better things in future. A On 18/9/04 5:36 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause pretty damn good. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! You seem iretrevably stuck in the past. In any event, nobody is saying it is a better way of operating, clearly full K/M support wouldd be welcomed by most pentax users who have these lenses and wish to use them. But given that is not going to happen, the support offered at present is pretty dam good. A. On 18/9/04 4:59 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax. It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take a reading before every exposure and after every aperture setting change is much slower than AE on the fly. That's why it hasn't been done this way, its an inferior way to do it compared to sensing the aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and on the fly. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes. And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does it dow this with old K and M mount lenses? Answer = Yes. Basically it provides AE operation via the green button. Not open apeture reading, which I agree would be nice, but good enough all the same given these lenses are nearly 30 years old in some cases. Not to mention the screw mounts. A. On 18/9/04 3:24 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your understanding is wrong. The camera is forced to taking a stop down reading because it doesn't have a clue what the K/M lens shooting aperture is going to be because it ignores the K/M aperture cam. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! JCO, my understanding is that it does take the apeture into account and set the shutter acordingly. A. On 18/9/04 2:43 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to say that ignoring the aperure setting of the K/M lenses doesn't mattter (and never has) makes very little sense.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connell wrote: 20 years of film cameras that fully supported both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need to show it can be done. I know it can be done because I could design it myself it is so simple. all it is is simple exposure compensation, so many stops more exposure per degree of rotation of the cam. Don't be apologizing for what they have done pretending there was some reason when it is obvious there was no technical reason to do. JCO Okay, but what you have neglected to address is, we're talking about incorporating lens adjustment levers and such in a digital body. Unless you consider that, all this is the hoary apples and oranges gambit. That Pentax could account for all manner of electrical and mechanical adjustments on any of their K-mount bodies is just a data point. It does not go without saying that they could easily accomodate such an arrangement in a digital body. Perhaps you DO know what room is available in the D and DS for all the linkages, I don't know. If you do know, I'll shut up permanently! good for all! keith keith -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. It is a first in their history and goes against everything they always stood for in supporting legacy products when possible. They certainly could have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. ...[V]ery easily? How do you know they could have? Isn't it even possible that their design engineers looked at the possibility and veto'd it, for some reason they didn't choose to reveal to the general public? Don't you suppose there could have been one or more reasons for the exclusion that are not obvious to you? It's entirely possible it was a higher-up management decision, and it didn't need a lot of justification. Big boss says do it, you do it. But which ever one it might have been, we really don't know, and until we do, all else is supposition. Typical of human nature, we choose to assign nefarious, perverse reasons for the decision. Smacks of paranoia... I don't think they're trying to tick off all their old customers. But, they do have a company to run, don't they. Decisions need to be made, some of which may not be well-accepted by the miniscule M-42 crowd or the non-auto K-mount folks. All that is supposition, too. But, if you're going to make supposition the order of the day, you'll have to broaden the blame, and assign some more weight to pure short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which we are simply not privy to... keith This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. I would not put anything past them after this. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Hi, In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the gut and deposited in the field. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of this practice since our foot mouth epidemic fiasco. Now that hunting with dogs is about to be banned, perhaps the pink-coated toffs and rocker-sprogs will take to hunting with sheep. Or perhaps they'll try to sell their red-hot sheep to the House of Commons catering committee... -- Cheers, Bob
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Hi, Saturday, September 18, 2004, 6:28:12 PM, Keith wrote: Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. You obviously haven't been reading the PDML for the last few years. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something newer, especially if it makes it difficult to use some of the gear you already have? If you want to do something other than what you're now doing, then some additional equipment may be necessary, and, at that point, you may want to add a lens or two to the mix anyway. Personally (and not to pick on you, just using this message space to make a comment), if I want AE as defined by JCO, the LX and ME-S are just fine for that. If I want more manual control and feel, the MX and the Leicas are ideal for that. If I want a more classic feel or experience, the Spotties do the trick. Now that digital is here, I'm willing to accept (perhaps not embrace) the idea that to take advantage of the new cameras, some new lenses may be in order, although I still don't have to buy new ones as there are already a few A lenses in the equipment cabinet. And, should I discover that pushing the green button, or some such similar act on the istDS is, indeed tiresome as one poster suggested, then it's not a big deal to pick up a couple three more A lenses which seem to be rather inexpensive these days. While I understand what JCO is concerned about - that this may be a turning point for Pentax and that he doesn't like the direction in which it's turning - I don't see it as any major issue. Truth is, Pentax has had some tough years, in part because they didn't keep up with change. Now they seem to be embracing change, and moving forward. This will keep them afloat, generate NEW customers and not just be the camera company for old farts who want to impress a few people with the fact that their forty year old lenses fit and eork on new cameras. Like every business has learned, new customers, especially younger new customers, must be courted and convinced to buy the product you're producing, or else you'll pass into oblivion. So, while it may be neat if the K and M lenses worked in such a way that there is no need to press a button, it may be neater still to see pentax as once again a major (or at least a larger) player in the field of photography. And for guys like Paul and me, who have a long history of using manual gear, and who, perhaps even use our AE exposure cameras manually, the green button syndrome is, indeed, almost a luxury. Ciao 4 Now, Shel From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is already the case that _all_ my present lenses will not function the same way on the newest range of cameras. The _best_ I can hope for, at present, is a workaround that will not suit most of what I do. Not being someone who generally rants, raves and blithers on [what am I doing here? 8-)] the only thing I can do (and it is an _active_) is not buy. Just possibly, the message will get through.
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Only three people making dozens of posts. We are turning into Usenet here... -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide whatever they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. They have never done anything like this before so the sky is the limit for them now.They were ONCE one of the best brands for compatibility of new products and support of older ones in the process ( A, and F lenses for example). The fact they did not change their mount when AF came out was great, unlike minolta and canon did, but what was the point of abandoning very SIMPLE K/M support now when there is no new lenses or mount changes? NONE except to attempt to sell new lenses that I can seeAnd if a cheap part removal saved costs, where is it in the price? Aint there! I don't think there is any signifigant cost savings in K/M ignorance, that's why the camera is still relatively expensive compared to their rivals. This K/M aperture ignorance is absurd in a top line camera from them that isn't even price competitive and that absurdity makes me no longer trust them at all. The sad part is Both the K and the M lenses are better made (longer life) than the A series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy. They are now in the disposable camera market. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the people with many pre-A lenses that are interested in a DSLR for right now are a tiny number of people. the software fix satisfied most of them. spending a lot of money to satisfy a few hundred of people is a waste of money. with Pentax looking now to lose money on the Imaging Product division this coming year, that will be 3 out of 4 years in the red for the division. you won't get one because you can't push a green button once in a while. your loss. To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax does read this list, they've undoubtedly come to the conclusion that they've made the correct decisions on lens compatibility.
RE: istDs - what a great camera!
The capture has nothing to do with the lensmount. There are no new lenses or lens features on this camera. Why do you propose that it being a digital camera prevented the K/M support when there is nothing new going on with regard to the cameras lens mount, just part of it is missing. Sorely missing. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: 20 years of film cameras that fully supported both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need to show it can be done. I know it can be done because I could design it myself it is so simple. all it is is simple exposure compensation, so many stops more exposure per degree of rotation of the cam. Don't be apologizing for what they have done pretending there was some reason when it is obvious there was no technical reason to do. JCO Okay, but what you have neglected to address is, we're talking about incorporating lens adjustment levers and such in a digital body. Unless you consider that, all this is the hoary apples and oranges gambit. That Pentax could account for all manner of electrical and mechanical adjustments on any of their K-mount bodies is just a data point. It does not go without saying that they could easily accomodate such an arrangement in a digital body. Perhaps you DO know what room is available in the D and DS for all the linkages, I don't know. If you do know, I'll shut up permanently! good for all! keith keith -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! J. C. O'Connell wrote: I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause. It is a first in their history and goes against everything they always stood for in supporting legacy products when possible. They certainly could have fully supported K/M very easily and havent. ...[V]ery easily? How do you know they could have? Isn't it even possible that their design engineers looked at the possibility and veto'd it, for some reason they didn't choose to reveal to the general public? Don't you suppose there could have been one or more reasons for the exclusion that are not obvious to you? It's entirely possible it was a higher-up management decision, and it didn't need a lot of justification. Big boss says do it, you do it. But which ever one it might have been, we really don't know, and until we do, all else is supposition. Typical of human nature, we choose to assign nefarious, perverse reasons for the decision. Smacks of paranoia... I don't think they're trying to tick off all their old customers. But, they do have a company to run, don't they. Decisions need to be made, some of which may not be well-accepted by the miniscule M-42 crowd or the non-auto K-mount folks. All that is supposition, too. But, if you're going to make supposition the order of the day, you'll have to broaden the blame, and assign some more weight to pure short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which we are simply not privy to... keith This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this. I would not put anything past them after this. JCO -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez! All without a shred of tangible, valid evidence, too! Soothsaying without a license no less! What if's are in the realm of questions for story-telling sages. keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Amen ! Cotty wrote: My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the 70s and 80s. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
OT: Bequerels (was: Re: istDs - what a great camera!)
IIRC, the only organisms that still contain serious amounts of radiation are fungi. Both because they are decomposers and because they are long-lived. Some species grow more than 30 years old. I'm not sure if moving the animals to different pastures for a few weeks would help, though. It's not just the gut that needs to be flushed out, as the testing is based on fat or muscle tissue. Jostein - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Hi, Jostein wrote: Btw, I happened upon a band of reindeer hunters when out photographing last week-end. It was they who told me about the radioactivity. In some parts, the Tchernobyl aftermath is still an issue. Sheep having grazed freely in the mountains are still controlled before slaughtered. In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the gut and deposited in the field. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of this practice since our foot mouth epidemic fiasco. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
What if they abandon support for all lenses and we are all forced to make a pinhole in the body cap? I see this happening soon vbg. On Sep 18, 2004, at 12:59 PM, mike wilson wrote: Hi, J. C. O'Connell wrote: they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and when? There is now no limit to the shit they might pull now. I might put it a bit less saltily but FWIW I agree with you on this issue. My thought is that they might abandon support for all lenses that do not supply MTF data, ie right up to, and including, the F series. mike
Re: istDs - what a great camera!
A very wise post, Shel. Things don't stand still. John On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:53:51 -0700, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something newer, especially if it makes it difficult to use some of the gear you already have? If you want to do something other than what you're now doing, then some additional equipment may be necessary, and, at that point, you may want to add a lens or two to the mix anyway. Personally (and not to pick on you, just using this message space to make a comment), if I want AE as defined by JCO, the LX and ME-S are just fine for that. If I want more manual control and feel, the MX and the Leicas are ideal for that. If I want a more classic feel or experience, the Spotties do the trick. Now that digital is here, I'm willing to accept (perhaps not embrace) the idea that to take advantage of the new cameras, some new lenses may be in order, although I still don't have to buy new ones as there are already a few A lenses in the equipment cabinet. And, should I discover that pushing the green button, or some such similar act on the istDS is, indeed tiresome as one poster suggested, then it's not a big deal to pick up a couple three more A lenses which seem to be rather inexpensive these days. While I understand what JCO is concerned about - that this may be a turning point for Pentax and that he doesn't like the direction in which it's turning - I don't see it as any major issue. Truth is, Pentax has had some tough years, in part because they didn't keep up with change. Now they seem to be embracing change, and moving forward. This will keep them afloat, generate NEW customers and not just be the camera company for old farts who want to impress a few people with the fact that their forty year old lenses fit and eork on new cameras. Like every business has learned, new customers, especially younger new customers, must be courted and convinced to buy the product you're producing, or else you'll pass into oblivion. So, while it may be neat if the K and M lenses worked in such a way that there is no need to press a button, it may be neater still to see pentax as once again a major (or at least a larger) player in the field of photography. And for guys like Paul and me, who have a long history of using manual gear, and who, perhaps even use our AE exposure cameras manually, the green button syndrome is, indeed, almost a luxury. Ciao 4 Now, Shel From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is already the case that _all_ my present lenses will not function the same way on the newest range of cameras. The _best_ I can hope for, at present, is a workaround that will not suit most of what I do. Not being someone who generally rants, raves and blithers on [what am I doing here? 8-)] the only thing I can do (and it is an _active_) is not buy. Just possibly, the message will get through. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
