Gerald Wang wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Robert P. VanNatta wrote:
> > One has to wonder what possessed Pentax to even make those turkeys. How
> > many pennies did they save in manufacturing costs by leaving out the parts
> > that would allow the "m" series lenses to work?
> >
> > Pentax has the best track record in the industry (I think) for maintaining
>compatibility over time, and why did they
> > break the mold?
>
> I think it's because they are guessing that people who buy the ZX-50 and
> ZX-30 are not too concerned about backwards-compatibility with old MF
> lenses. I know here in my town it is getting *very* difficult to find any
> second-hand Pentax gear at all.
I think it may also be that people who are buying the MZ-30 may not
understand why they cannot get full autoexposure with an M lens, or
maybe MZ-50 users have been complaining about depth of field problems
when using M lenses because they're not understanding the way that the
lenses work? Not to talk down to MZ-50 users, but of all the current
Pentax offerings, the 50 (and now the 30) is the one most targeted at
the guy who doesn't know how this stuff works. Of course, crippling it
in this way penalizes the more advanced user, but maybe Pentax think
this will make that user buy an MZ-7 instead?
Aaron
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
