Say WHAT? They do what they have to do to come up with what the engineers and marketing have specified. Whatever they have to do to get there is fair game. I suggest that they are showing their keen expertise, by using all tools/techniques at hand, to come up with meeting those specifications. Your belittling and questioning of why and how they got there is amazing to me! Have you ever participated in a full-blown design exercise, the end product of which was meant to be sold in tough competition world-wide, and you're having to use every new and innovative technique you can thnk of, not to say cutting edge technology, to get there? That isn't a lifeboat situation, it's a common happening within very high tech operations.
I applaud their efforts! keith whaley Chris Brogden wrote: > > Now, a more cynical person might suggest that if Pentax doesn't have to > spend money on SMC'ing everything and cranking out aspherical elements, > they won't. One might also suggest that the fact that Pentax had to do > this indicates that the lens design may not be all that great, and that > the sliding design introduced some unacceptable optical compromises. > Fortunately, we're not cynical people. > > chris > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > _Especially_ since they have gone to the bother of SMC coating all > > surfaces of each element, AND have designed 2 of the 6 elements to > > have aspheric surfaces, both sides. > > It certainly seems Pentax have taken great care to make a top > > performer out of this limited size lens. I'm hoping it's a new classic > > in performance!
