Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > ...and then you slide a group of elements in and out from the side a few > thousand times using a mechanism that can't cost more than a few bucks, > and tell me how many "red-headed flea's fine curly hairs" it shifted > from the time it rolled off the line. > Did you even look at the diagram of what's going on inside that lens > assembly every time you turn the thing on and off?
Immaterial. keith > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >*I* meant optical alignment, too... > > > >I suppose you'd know, but it isn't the optical engineer that designs > >the optical mounts for his lenses...it's the mechanical engineer! It's > >HE that arranges for the lenses to be precisely a red-headed flea's > >fine curly hair apart, and axially aligned within a gnat's gn** and > >precisely in plane (parallel to each other.) > >If it tests okay on the optical bench, _both_ the optical and the > >mechanical engineer have done their jobs correctly... <g> > > > >All by themselves, neither the optical nor the mechanical engineer are > >worth sour owl s[cat.] > >They must work in concert to build a beautiful sonata in glass! <g> > > > >keith whaley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Sorry for any confusion, but I couldn't > >>imagine it not working mechanically for many thousands of cycles. It's > >>still a "whizzy" feature and does nothing to help functional performance. > >>The folks responsible for the space shuttle were also supposed to be the > >>best in the business also. I also know that you and Pal fly into a blind > >>rage when anyone says anything negative about Pentax. > >> > >>BR > >> > >> > > > > > >
