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
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)
Pål Jensen wrote: 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. 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 too many Pentax buyers are too cheap The unfortunate fact is that Pentax was too cheap to include one. cheers, caveman
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) . 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)
Arnold wrote: 1.) The *ist D KNOWS when there is no lens in A position. It treats all lenses that are not in A position equally. This is fine, as to enable stop down metering for all such lenses (including srew mount and manual aperture k-mount lenses) there is no need to distinguish between them. All that is needed is to release the aperture lever when metering with any lens not being in "A" position, disregarding wheter the lens has an aperture lever or not. REPLY: A screw mount lens will be stopped down when mounted. A K/M lens will be wide open regardless of aperture set on the lens. Hence, the camera need to stop down (with a motor) when metering with the latter. How does it know it is a K/M lens and not a screw mount lens? This will be an awful solution both technically and in use only to please extremely few users. What if you forget to active DOF preview when metering? What if you accidentally use the same procedure with an FA lens out of habit? Is the exposure value remembered by the camera or are stucked in manual mode only? If it use exposure lock then the camera must be designed so that it locks the metered value when activating DOF preview only with K/M lenses. The idea is probbaly to make a camera thats easy to use. The above make it truly crippled not to mention confusing. Pentax really had three choices. 1) Stick to the old KAF2 mount. 2) KAF2 with "electronic" metering . 3) Two separate metering systems 1)+2). 1) would probably make the *ist D incompatible with future lenses hence doing the customers no favour. 2) is what they did. 3) would be both awkward in engineering and expensive. Customers won't pay for it. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Rüdiger wrote: With the K-mount incompabilty Pentax is loosing their strongest marketing argument. REPLY: This is a complete misunderstanding. The number of Pentax customers (as opposed to users) who buy an slr with compatibility of more than 20 year old lenses are so few that percentage is not a useful way to measure it. Just ask any Pentax rep. 90% of all slr sales, and this include Nikon and Canon, are in the Rebel/*ist class and they are sold with kit lenses. For Pentax the number is probably closer to 98%. Calling an "advantage" that only benefit less than 1% of the buyers as strongest marketing argument is simply misguided. Only a tiny fraction of the tiny percentage use older than 20 year old lenses. Only a tiny fraction of those again are in the market for a DSLR. Still, 20 year backwards compatibility with lenses is the best of any DSLR. The 90% slr market segment is what all manufacturer now will chase for DSLR. This is where the volume is. Another volume segment are those upgrading from digital P&S. More than 20 years backward compatibilty doesn't mean anything to these customers. Nor does it mean much to anyone else. I can't recollect any manufacturer of modern camerras who cater for customers with more than 20 year old equipment. If such a move had any advantages in business term I'm sure it would have been common. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen schrieb: A screw mount lens will be stopped down when mounted. A K/M lens will be wide open regardless of aperture set on the lens. Hence, the camera need to stop down (with a motor) when metering with the latter. How does it know it is a K/M lens and not a screw mount lens? REPLY: The camera need not know whether the lens is screw mount or k-mount. If the lens is screw mount, then it is already stopped down and the camera trying to close the aperture has no effect. If the lens is k-mount DOF preview stops down the lens. This will be an awful solution both technically and in use only to please extremely few users. REPLY: This is what is already is implemented in *ist and *ist D (unfortunately without metering when DOF preview is activated). It is not an awful solution but straightforward. What if you forget to active DOF preview when metering? REPLY: With a lens not in "A" position, metering should only be ON when DOF preview is activated. Actually, this would probably save battery power. What if you accidentally use the same procedure with an FA lens out of habit? REPLY: With an FA lens in A position, the meter should be OFF when DOF previewing. With the same lens not in "A" position, the meter should only be ON when DOF previewing. Quite simple, isn't it? How can you confuse the meter being ON or OFF? Is the exposure value remembered by the camera or are stucked in manual mode only? If it use exposure lock then the camera must be designed so that it locks the metered value when activating DOF preview only with K/M lenses. REPLY: See above: With a lens in "A" position, there is (and should be) no metering when DOF previewing. With any lens (FA, F, A, K, M, screw) not being in "A" position, metering should only be active when DOF previewing, and the measured value could be locked when DOF preview is ended. The idea is probbaly to make a camera thats easy to use. The above make it truly crippled not to mention confusing. REPLY: I hope your confusion is cured by now. Pentax really had three choices. 1) Stick to the old KAF2 mount. 2) KAF2 with "electronic" metering . 3) Two separate metering systems 1)+2). 1) would probably make the *ist D incompatible with future lenses hence doing the customers no favour. 2) is what they did. 3) would be both awkward in engineering and expensive. REPLY: It would only cost a few hours of programming and rewriting instrucion manuals. Stop-down metering as described by me would neither require any changes in the hardware nor would it complicate the use of the camera. On the contrary: The camera would be much easier to use with the built-in meter than without it. Customers won't pay for it. REPLY: Customers would not need to pay for it as it wouldn't have costed anything extra if Pentax had thought of it in the first place, and to update the camera software now would be payed for a lot of times by the extra cameras that would be sold, even if it were just a few. Arnold
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Isn't it wide open metering a simpler solution? Theres an exposure bar in the finder; if you set the aperture three stop from wide open, just dial in +3. Simple. I fear that a camera manufacturer who release a camera where you have to activate the DOF preview before metering and then note the exposure, switch to manual exposure and then dial it in, will be promptly laughed out of business. In fact, the current solution with wide open metering would be faster and simpler in use. Pål --- Pål Jensen schrieb: A screw mount lens will be stopped down when mounted. A K/M lens will be wide open regardless of aperture set on the lens. Hence, the camera need to stop down (with a motor) when metering with the latter. How does it know it is a K/M lens and not a screw mount lens? REPLY: The camera need not know whether the lens is screw mount or k-mount. If the lens is screw mount, then it is already stopped down and the camera trying to close the aperture has no effect. If the lens is k-mount DOF preview stops down the lens. This will be an awful solution both technically and in use only to please extremely few users. REPLY: This is what is already is implemented in *ist and *ist D (unfortunately without metering when DOF preview is activated). It is not an awful solution but straightforward. What if you forget to active DOF preview when metering? REPLY: With a lens not in "A" position, metering should only be ON when DOF preview is activated. Actually, this would probably save battery power. What if you accidentally use the same procedure with an FA lens out of habit? REPLY: With an FA lens in A position, the meter should be OFF when DOF previewing. With the same lens not in "A" position, the meter should only be ON when DOF previewing. Quite simple, isn't it? How can you confuse the meter being ON or OFF? Is the exposure value remembered by the camera or are stucked in manual mode only? If it use exposure lock then the camera must be designed so that it locks the metered value when activating DOF preview only with K/M lenses. REPLY: See above: With a lens in "A" position, there is (and should be) no metering when DOF previewing. With any lens (FA, F, A, K, M, screw) not being in "A" position, metering should only be active when DOF previewing, and the measured value could be locked when DOF preview is ended. The idea is probbaly to make a camera thats easy to use. The above make it truly crippled not to mention confusing. REPLY: I hope your confusion is cured by now. Pentax really had three choices. 1) Stick to the old KAF2 mount. 2) KAF2 with "electronic" metering . 3) Two separate metering systems 1)+2). 1) would probably make the *ist D incompatible with future lenses hence doing the customers no favour. 2) is what they did. 3) would be both awkward in engineering and expensive. REPLY: It would only cost a few hours of programming and rewriting instrucion manuals. Stop-down metering as described by me would neither require any changes in the hardware nor would it complicate the use of the camera. On the contrary: The camera would be much easier to use with the built-in meter than without it. Customers won't pay for it. REPLY: Customers would not need to pay for it as it wouldn't have costed anything extra if Pentax had thought of it in the first place, and to update the camera software now would be payed for a lot of times by the extra cameras that would be sold, even if it were just a few. Arnold
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Hallo Pal, I'm wondering that this group of k-mount user shall be that small. When I read in dpreview, there are a lot of people who are writing, I will wait for the great Pentax *istD, because than I can use my k-mount lenses. If this group is that small why does Pentax make a software to prevent compability. I would be easy without any effort to allow stopdown metering in Av mode or metering in M-mode. I should work, like it is writen in the *ist manual, but it doesn't. It is the gred of Pentax from preventing using K-mount lenses, but it will not pay, the people will go to Canon or Nikon. regards Rüdiger Von: Pål Jensen >Rüdiger wrote: > >With the K-mount incompabilty Pentax is loosing their strongest marketing >argument. > > > >REPLY: > >This is a complete misunderstanding. The number of Pentax customers (as opposed to users) who buy an slr with compatibility of more than 20 year old lenses are so few that percentage is not a useful way to measure it. Just ask any Pentax rep. 90% of all slr sales, and this include Nikon and Canon, are in the Rebel/*ist class and they are sold with kit lenses. For Pentax the number is probably closer to 98%. Calling an "advantage" that only benefit less than 1% of the buyers as strongest marketing argument is simply misguided. Only a tiny fraction of the tiny percentage use older than 20 year old lenses. Only a tiny fraction of those again are in the market for a DSLR. >Still, 20 year backwards compatibility with lenses is the best of any DSLR. >The 90% slr market segment is what all manufacturer now will chase for DSLR. This is where the volume is. Another volume segment are those upgrading from digital P&S. More than 20 years backward compatibilty doesn't mean anything to these customers. Nor does it mean much to anyone else. I can't recollect any manufacturer of modern camerras who cater for customers with more than 20 year old equipment. If such a move had any advantages in business term I'm sure it would have been common. > >Pål > > > >
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Another thing that crosses my mind with regard to the *ist-D: Pentax's most advanced customers are probably those most likely to own a few older K/M/Screw lenses. Why would a company want to produce a _first_ digital SLR that alienates its most experienced users? Who in his right mind wants to spend more bucks for a new plastic lens to replace old workhorses that have better build and very good optical quality? The *ist doesn't bother me, but the *ist-D does.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Hallo Arnold, every word is absolutly right from you. I have the impression, Pentax has a software to prevent compability and switch of the metering in M-mode (like on the Nikon F80). I will cost no money at all to allow stop down metering in Av mode with Dof or in M-mode. Funny, in the manual of the *ist is write that the time is changing if you are turning the aperture ring on k-mount lenses, but that does not work. I myself have no problems with k-mount lenses, because I have only F/FA/A lenses but I fear they are ruin the Pentax company regards Rüdiger Von: Arnold Stark >Pål Jensen schrieb: > >>A screw mount lens will be stopped down when mounted. A K/M lens will be wide open regardless of aperture set on the lens. Hence, the camera need to stop down (with a motor) when metering with the latter. How does it know it is a K/M lens and not a screw mount lens? >> >REPLY: >The camera need not know whether the lens is screw mount or k-mount. If > the lens is screw mount, then it is already stopped down and the camera >trying to close the aperture has no effect. If the lens is k-mount DOF >preview stops down the lens. > >>This will be an awful solution both technically and in use only to please extremely few users. >> >REPLY: >This is what is already is implemented in *ist and *ist D (unfortunately >without metering when DOF preview is activated). It is not an awful >solution but straightforward. > >>What if you forget to active DOF preview when metering? >> >REPLY: >With a lens not in "A" position, metering should only be ON when DOF >preview is activated. Actually, this would probably save battery power. > >>What if you accidentally use the same procedure with an FA lens out of habit? >> >REPLY: >With an FA lens in A position, the meter should be OFF when DOF >previewing. With the same lens not in "A" position, the meter should >only be ON when DOF previewing. Quite simple, isn't it? How can you >confuse the meter being ON or OFF? > >>Is the exposure value remembered by the camera or are stucked in manual mode only? If it use exposure lock then the camera must be designed so that it locks the metered value when activating DOF preview only with K/M lenses. >> >REPLY: >See above: With a lens in "A" position, there is (and should be) no >metering when DOF previewing. With any lens (FA, F, A, K, M, screw) not >being in "A" position, metering should only be active when DOF >previewing, and the measured value could be locked when DOF preview is >ended. > >>The idea is probbaly to make a camera thats easy to use. The above make it truly crippled not to mention confusing. >> >REPLY: >I hope your confusion is cured by now. > >>Pentax really had three choices. 1) Stick to the old KAF2 mount. 2) KAF2 with "electronic" metering . 3) Two separate metering systems 1)+2). 1) would probably make the *ist D incompatible with future lenses hence doing the customers no favour. 2) is what they did. 3) would be both awkward in engineering and expensive. >> >REPLY: >It would only cost a few hours of programming and rewriting instrucion >manuals. Stop-down metering as described by me would neither require any >changes in the hardware nor would it complicate the use of the camera. >On the contrary: The camera would be much easier to use with the >built-in meter than without it. > >>Customers won't pay for it. >> >> >REPLY: >Customers would not need to pay for it as it wouldn't have costed >anything extra if Pentax had thought of it in the first place, and to >update the camera software now would be payed for a lot of times by the >extra cameras that would be sold, even if it were just a few. > >Arnold >
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Rüdiger wrote: It is the gred of Pentax from preventing using K-mount lenses, but it will not pay, the people will go to Canon or Nikon. REPLY: Canon and Nikon are where they are because they gave a rats ass about users of more than 20 year old lenses. If Pentax is going to survive they have to catch up not make expensive or clumsy solutions for people who don't buy new lenses. People who refuse to buy new Pentax lenses but gladly buy new Canon or Nikon lenses better switch! Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Lon wrote: Another thing that crosses my mind with regard to the *ist-D: Pentax's most advanced customers are probably those most likely to own a few older K/M/Screw lenses. Why would a company want to produce a _first_ digital SLR that alienates its most experienced users? REPLY: Firstly, the premise is wrong. The most advanced Pentax users have replaced their 20 year old lenses long time ago. It is the conservative users, collectors and those who can't afford, or have no interest in, new equipment who sit on lenses more than 20 years old. This is true for all brands. Very few of them are in the market for a DSLR. Secondly, the *ist's are targeted to the volume segment where compatibility with 20+ year old lenses are of zero importance. Lon: Who in his right mind wants to spend more bucks for a new plastic lens to replace old workhorses that have better build and very good optical quality? REPLY: I've replaced all my K (except one), M and most A lenses because the newer lenses have significantly better optical quality. They also offer AF and Matrix metering. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Dig a company report. Fabricated figures have no real meaning. Pål Jensen wrote: This is a complete misunderstanding. The number of Pentax customers (as opposed to users) who buy an slr with compatibility of more than 20 year old lenses are so few that percentage is not a useful way to measure it. Just ask any Pentax rep. 90% of all slr sales, and this include Nikon and Canon, are in the Rebel/*ist class and they are sold with kit lenses. For Pentax the number is probably closer to 98%. Calling an "advantage" that only benefit less than 1% of the buyers as strongest marketing argument is simply misguided. Only a tiny fraction of the tiny percentage use older than 20 year old lenses. Only a tiny fraction of those again are in the market for a DSLR. Still, 20 year backwards compatibility with lenses is the best of any DSLR. The 90% slr market segment is what all manufacturer now will chase for DSLR. This is where the volume is. Another volume segment are those upgrading from digital P&S. More than 20 years backward compatibilty doesn't mean anything to these customers. Nor does it mean much to anyone else. I can't recollect any manufacturer of modern camerras who cater for customers with more than 20 year old equipment. If such a move had any advantages in business term I'm sure it would have been common. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen wrote: Canon and Nikon are where they are because they gave a rats ass about users of more than 20 year old lenses. Canon is where it is because they invest in R&D and come up with the right product & technology at the right time. The others try to imitate them with a 2-3 years lag (Nikon) or gave up altogether (Pentax).
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen wrote: Firstly, the premise is wrong. The most advanced Pentax users have replaced their 20 year old lenses long time ago. Could you please define what an "advanced Pentax user" is, and do you include yourself in that category ?
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
An advanced Pentax user is Pål Jensen. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please define what an "advanced Pentax user" is, and do you include yourself in that category ?
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
An advanced Pentax user is someone who has their Pentax gear under glass as museum pieces, and takes pictures with some other brand of cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please define what an "advanced Pentax user" is, and do you include yourself in that category ?
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen wrote: > [...] > > Lon: > Who in his right mind wants to spend more bucks for a new > plastic lens to replace old workhorses that have better > build and very good optical quality? > > REPLY: > > I've replaced all my K (except one), M and most A lenses because the newer lenses > have significantly better optical quality. _Significantly_ better OPTICAL performance? I may well have missed that somewhere onsite, but where does it say that? In other words, who says so? > They also offer AF and Matrix metering. keith whaley > Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål, Isn't it wide open metering a simpler solution? Right, but with K- and M-lenses you need an aperture simulator coupling ring to be able to have that. Without such ring (and I already accept the absence of it on the *ist D as a fact) you can have metering only for the maximum aperture (as implemented in *ist and *ist D) or with the lens stopped down. Theres an exposure bar in the finder; if you set the aperture three stop from wide open, just dial in +3. Simple. Are you going to dial in + 7 for f16 with the M50/f1.4? I fear that a camera manufacturer who release a camera where you have to activate the DOF preview before metering and then note the exposure, switch to manual exposure and then dial it in, will be promptly laughed out of business. I never suggested such scheme. I am under the impression that you don't really care to understand what I write. I suggested a much simpler scheme: Plain stop down metering. Let me repeat: Provided that you have any lens that is not in "A" position the meter wouldn't work until DOF preview would be activated. In manual mode there would then be the bar showing over- or underexposure. In aperture priotity mode, the metered value could be locked when DOF preview would be left. That's all. No switching between modes would be required. However, the way the *ist D is now it will really be laughed at: When using a K lens, you need to measure the time that the camera would choose for maximum aperture. Then one needs to calculate the correct time for the chosen aperture, swtich to manual mode and dial in the calculated time. That is ridiculous, it is hilarious. In fact, the current solution with wide open metering would be faster and simpler in use. Only in another universe. Arnold
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Rüdiger wrote: "you are absolutly right, it would be technicaly no effort to allow stop down metering with non A lenses, or metering in DOF mode an put it in the ML memory. Pentax has prevented this compability by perpose. The people shall by new lenses, but that will not work. Pentax is loosing his only advantage over Canon and Nikon, the k-mount compabilty. At lot of old K1000 and ME users would have bought the *istD, now the will not. If the usage of old lenses is not convinient, they will buy new AF lenses. With the K-mount incompabilty Pentax is loosing their strongest marketing argument." I'll admit to knowing little about marketing, so the following is speculation. Pentax has been living off k-mount compatibility for years now. That is a declining market as older Pentax users quit or switch. So the switch to a new mount may mean that Pentax will try to increase its market share by recruiting new users, and is trying to increase profitability by forcing people to buy new lenses. Joe
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen wrote: Caveman wrote: Could you please define what an "advanced Pentax user" is, and do you include yourself in that category ? REPLY: I was replying to post about "advanced Pentax customers" and I replied in this context. Since you didn't answer the question, let me try again: could you please define what is an "advanced Pentax user" and what is an "advanced Pentax customer" ? Do you include yourself in one of these categories, and if yes, in which one ? Pentax doesn't really care about either of those (not surprisingly). [...] Pentax isn't interested in users. Since when did Pentax appoint you as their spokesman ? cheers, caveman
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Caveman" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) > Since when did Pentax appoint you as their spokesman ? Perhaps he looks so good waving pom poms that they had to do it. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
I was replying to post about "advanced Pentax customers" and I replied in this context. Users who have never bought a single Pentax item new aren't even customers and never have been. And those who bought equipment more than 20 years ago are previous customers. Pentax doesn't really care about either of those (not surprisingly). A third category, like Arnold, is so few and far between that they don't really count. Pentax isn't interested in users. They are a business and care about customers. And there is the 4th category - those who keep buying Pentax products but complaining constantly. They don't consider those are their customers either because of the trouble (the truth doesn't really matter). They care about your money, not the whining. And that is me. :-) Btw, the correct statement should be " They are a business and care about money." regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Hi Pål and others The future might bring a lot of "Not Pentax Users" who use UDSED PENTAX stuff. From all the people who sell out their Pentax gear. Hell, I still use Exaktas, Topcons, Rolleiflexes... Why? Because they are really great cameras, of course. Just like some current and discontinued Pentax model were/still are. I don't believe Pentax only supports first time buyers - the new generation. Digital stuff is so expensive, that most buyers will be fifty and above Any research about age of Pentax users/buyers - or buyers of digital cameras above 1500-2000$? Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2003 22:38 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) Pål Jensen wrote: > Caveman wrote: > > Could you please define what an "advanced Pentax user" is, and do you include yourself in that category ? > > > REPLY: > I was replying to post about "advanced Pentax customers" and I replied in this context. Since you didn't answer the question, let me try again: could you please define what is an "advanced Pentax user" and what is an "advanced Pentax customer" ? Do you include yourself in one of these categories, and if yes, in which one ? > Pentax doesn't really care about either of those (not surprisingly). [...] > Pentax isn't interested in users. Since when did Pentax appoint you as their spokesman ? cheers, caveman
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Alan wrote: > And there is the 4th category - those who keep buying Pentax products but > complaining constantly. They don't consider those are their customers either > because of the trouble (the truth doesn't really matter). They care about > your money, not the whining. And that is me. :-) Thats not whining but justified complaints. It whining when you whine about cameras and camera segment you have no interest in. And when it doesn't at all affect what you are using. > Btw, the correct statement should be " They are a business and care about > money." Sure Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
William wrote: I don't think any company can afford to alienate a customer base, especially when it is an also ran who is introducing new for them technology to the market place. REPLY: This requires that you have customer base worth providing for. The Pentax customer base buy entry level slr's bundled with zooms. Perhaps even Sigma zooms. They don't know what compatibility means and they will be pleased with the *ist and the FA-J lenses. The "advanced Pentax Customer" base are so few that Pentax know every one of them by first name. Yes, this is exaggregating but there is truth in it. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Jens wrote: > Any research about age of Pentax users/buyers - or buyers of digital cameras > above 1500-2000$? Not even Nikon bothers with this sort of compatibility in the *ist D class and they have a old user base incredibly much larger than Pentax. Digital attracks new buyers to a large extent. I talked with Pentax reps about this about a month ago and he promptly said the market didn't exist. Theres perhaps a couple of persons in whole country that it would affect but those had lenses that was compatible anyway. Some Pentax MF users might be interested otherwise it is a completely new market. SLR sales, and Pentax in particular, is totally dominated be entry level cameras bundled with kit lenses. And although Nikon and Canon have higher end sales, miniscule compared to the volume stuff anyway, Pentax doesn't really at all in comparison. In addition, those who own older gear rarely own more than two cheap zoom lenses and their usability rarely enters the equation when doing such substantial investment as a DSLR. Nikon and Canon may have a lots of "advanced users". Pentax doesn't. Sure it is annoying for those affacted but they are minority among those who complains. Most complains for the fun of it, it seems. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine) > Thats not whining but justified complaints. It whining when you whine about cameras and camera segment you have no interest in. And when it doesn't at all affect what you are using. What is it when you want to be in a camera segment, but the company you betted on fails to allow you into that segment? William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) Most complains for the fun of it, it seems. No, we complain because we are quality concious camera users who are seriously pissed off that the camera line that we have invested in can't be bothered to build a camera that interests us. The MZ-S is an ugly girl, but at least she can dance. The asterist is cheap whore with a wooden leg, the digital version, if it ever sees the light of day retains the wooden leg as a "feature". I can understand that they have to make a gimpy whore to stay in the game. It would be nice if they would give people some sign that they haven't completely lost their minds, just to allow us to keep the faith. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) > William wrote: > > I don't think any company can afford to alienate a customer base, especially > when it is an also ran who is introducing new for them technology to the > market place. > > > REPLY: > > This requires that you have customer base worth providing for. The Pentax customer base buy entry level slr's bundled with zooms. Perhaps even Sigma zooms. They don't know what compatibility means and they will be pleased with the *ist and the FA-J lenses. The "advanced Pentax Customer" base are so few that Pentax know every one of them by first name. Yes, this is exaggregating but there is truth in it. Earning a customer base worth providing for seems to be work that Pentax isn't interested in taking on. They may be on a fast track to oblivion if they stay the course. I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where they fit into the entry level customer base. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
William wrote: Earning a customer base worth providing for seems to be work that Pentax isn't interested in taking on. They may be on a fast track to oblivion if they stay the course. I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where they fit into the entry level customer base. REPLY: True. However, you cannot judge Pentax take on slr from the ist's alone. They are intended as entry level at film and digital regardless of the fact that some claim that they aren't really entry level. Pentax have promised more lenses in the fall in their press releases. Unofficially, it is claimed to be "the good stuff". Pentax press release after the demise of the MD-S stated that they wanted to invest their DSLR resources at the market segment their customers wanted. The sorry fact is that most Pentax users are cheapshots regretable as it is. It has always been a mystery who the FA* and Limited lenses really are intended for. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
William wrote: What is it when you want to be in a camera segment, but the company you betted on fails to allow you into that segment? REPLY: Then the whining is justified. If you, however, have never bought a Pentax product in your life and never intend to and still whine, you better see a shrink. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" in"AmericanPhoto"magazine) >: > > Then the whining is justified. If you, however, have never bought a Pentax product in your life and never intend to and still whine, you better see a shrink. Like I needed justification from you, but thanks anyway. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" "AmericanPhoto"magazine) > The sorry fact is that most Pentax users are cheapshots regretable as it is. The really sorry fact is, Pentax themselves are responsible for this regretable perception. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pål Jensen wrote: William wrote: What is it when you want to be in a camera segment, but the company you betted on fails to allow you into that segment? REPLY: Then the whining is justified. If you, however, have never bought a Pentax product in your life and never intend to and still whine, you better see a shrink. You mean, something like that guy Paal Jensen whining about the digital back for the Leica R8/R9 ? I agree with you, he needs a visit. cheers, caveman
RE: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
The Limited line was perhaps paying attention to some of us old K-mount users, who love metal barrels, very high optically standards, good looks, lasting quality. The *ist's are for the next generation, who want features and specs and lifestyle products. A year or two ago, PDML'ers were actually talking about an LX upgrade or a rangefinder for the LDT lenses. Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:37 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) I have a very unpleasant personal theory about this. Alan Chan wrote: >> I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where >> they >> fit into the entry level customer base. > > > This same question has been rasied when the 43Ltd was 1st introduced. > Clearly Pentax tried to mount it on the MZ-5 & MZ-3, but even the most > navie person knew they did not belong to each other. At least one can > say Z-1p & FA* lenses were advance amateurs' toys, but Limited lenses > for MZ-5/3 (don't forget MZ-S came at much latter stage, and they even > failed to match the colour correctly in most countries)? > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Pom Pom Pal? Whatta nickname. Fits, too. Nobody has been as persistant on photo net or rec.photo as Pal. Good for him. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Caveman" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) Since when did Pentax appoint you as their spokesman ? Perhaps he looks so good waving pom poms that they had to do it. William Robb
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)
If I had a theory about limited lenses, it would be that they were intended for the Japanese market only. The Japs make lots of things they do not export. Funny how they can't sell enough world wide to be profitable to manufacture (according to some PDMLers), but it is profitable to sell them locally. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:50 AM Subject: RE: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine) > The Limited line was perhaps paying attention to some of us old K-mount > users, who love metal barrels, very high optically standards, good looks, > lasting quality. The *ist's are for the next generation, who want features > and specs and lifestyle products. A year or two ago, PDML'ers were actually > talking about an LX upgrade or a rangefinder for the LDT lenses. > Jens > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:37 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in > "AmericanPhoto"magazine) > > > I have a very unpleasant personal theory about this. > > Alan Chan wrote: > >> I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where > >> they > >> fit into the entry level customer base. > > > > > > This same question has been rasied when the 43Ltd was 1st introduced. > > Clearly Pentax tried to mount it on the MZ-5 & MZ-3, but even the most > > navie person knew they did not belong to each other. At least one can > > say Z-1p & FA* lenses were advance amateurs' toys, but Limited lenses > > for MZ-5/3 (don't forget MZ-S came at much latter stage, and they even > > failed to match the colour correctly in most countries)? > > > > regards, > > Alan Chan > > > > _ > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > >
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
On 6 Jul 2003 at 23:32, Arnold Stark wrote: > So there are at least 2 of us :-) here on the list How many more are > there here? I have enough cash set aside now to buy a 1Ds and a clutch of L lenses but I'd much rather be able to buy a Pentax body to suite the great lenses that I already own. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)
Count me in. I'm liable to purchase both analog and digital *ist's that use pre-A lenses. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fra: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would be willing to pay a premium for an Asterist D body that would use the full Pentax lens line with typical feature loss. As is, I will wait to see what the second digital SLR brings to market looks like. So there are at least 2 of us :-) here on the list How many more are there here? I will, probably early next year. After looking at the film budget even my wife is beginning to agree ;-) Since most of my lenses are A-type I only have to get a new macro (anybody got a cheap A 100mm f/2.8?) and a 12mm... DagT
