Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Alin Flaider wrote: The best the rest of us can expect is FAJ Star lenses. Since these zooms start at f 1:5.6 ... and you would want to use them one stop down at least... why not make them fixed aperture at f 1:8 ... No aperture mechanism at all ! Imagine the savings !!! Also, fixed focus wouldn't be bad either, lots of savings too, and it would be the fastest and most silent focusing method on the market !!! cheers, caveman
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Let me just add that this whole thing is about a fundamental change to wholly electronic metering where the aperture value from the lens CPU is used. This also opens up for wholly electronic aperture setting in lenses compatible with the *ists. Pål - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine) Arnold wrote: Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Yes. It is because the aperture lever in the camera opens up K-mount lenses. The aperture lever is controlled by a motor and making K-mount lenses work it needs Frankenstein type of engineering making the camera recognising that it was not an A, F, FA or FA-J lens, not a screw mount lens either, and then start the aperture lever motor while metering . It would be expensive and battery hungry solution only to please less than 1000 people world-wide. The unfortunate fact is that too many Pentax buyers are too cheap and don't want to pay for costly features that will only please the few. You can always hope for a higher end digital body that uses two separate metering systems; one for K and M lenses and one for the rest. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Pal, the LX had compatibility as complete as any _other_ Pentax K body at the time of its introduction. The *ist-D will _not_ be in a similar situation at its introduction. Pål Jensen wrote: Peter wrote: You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you. I know your argument and I think you are short sighted. Pål is passing opinion as fact and he should be called on it. It was a fact. Not an opinion. The LX did not have 20 years of full compatibility. It did not have a similar large number of lenses to be compatible with as the *istD. This is an observation. It is not an apology for anything. Pentax didn't bother with 20+ year of compatibility when releasing the LX. They don't now either (also an observation). Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
If they had to raise the price $5 it would put the camera out of the market nitch they had planned ($1500) GRIN. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] What it needs is that advanced device called a diaphragm simulator coupling that you can find on the MZ-M flagship. The unfortunate fact is that Pentax was too cheap to include one.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
So in other words the *ist and *ist-D use screw mounts with a higher level of compatibility than K/M mounts because the camera can't stop you. Isn't that just grand. At 03:20 PM 7/4/03 +0200, you wrote: Arnold wrote: Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Yes. It is because the aperture lever in the camera opens up K-mount lenses. The aperture lever is controlled by a motor and making K-mount lenses work it needs Frankenstein type of engineering making the camera recognising that it was not an A, F, FA or FA-J lens, not a screw mount lens either, and then start the aperture lever motor while metering . It would be expensive and battery hungry solution only to please less than 1000 people world-wide. The unfortunate fact is that too many Pentax buyers are too cheap and don't want to pay for costly features that will only please the few. You can always hope for a higher end digital body that uses two separate metering systems; one for K and M lenses and one for the rest. Pål To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the *ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC Takumars as those are more up-to-date? Arnold Pål Jensen schrieb: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål
