Bruce, Much as I often disagree with you, and the way you go about posting here, I fully understand and largely agree with your points in this case. I must apologise for the way that people have landed on you and been (IMO) overly pedantic about the way you phrased your point.
I think we should all recognise that engineering and optical theory are also subject to marketing, manufacturing and cost constraints. Just because something should work perfectly in theory does not mean that it gets implemented in the perfect manner as dictated by the ideal design. Compromises are made, QA problems happen, things fail and less perfect designs/materials are often used to meet costs. I would think that no lens ever made is 100% perfectly aligned at all times to the gazillionth degree, and however small the odds are that a noticeable misalignment is made - and however small that misalignment is, the more complex the design, manufacture and usage the greater the odds become. This is reality as opposed to theory. My first reaction to seeing the design was: "How long before it breaks?" I still feel the same... > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 February 2003 20:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ten new cameras > > > My original comment: > ":If you look at the cut-away, you would see that the camera > is "flat" > only with the lens stored. To make it pack flat the center > element group > is moved out of the light path so the front and rear groups can be > brought closer together. I wonder what sort of alignment can be > maintained after that camera is opened and closed 1,000 times." > > I meant optical alignment. 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 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On 2/04/03 1:59 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>It isn't how many times you can get the mechanism to work, it's the > >>alignment of the lens elements. > >> > >> > > > >Your initial question was indeed boiled down to the cycle. > I am sure > >the alignment is fine and the concern, if any, would be about the > >mechanical cycle. But as a mechanical engineer, 100,000 > cycle sounds > >more intelligent than 1,000 cycles which could be reached in > a matter > >of weeks, particularly during the initial stage when owners tend to > >play with it. And I am sure that they designed the positioning > >mechanism fine, have cycle tested and determined that it can > take the > >rigour of consumers' abuse. The rest of your argument is your > >speculation based on your level of knowledge. I trust Pentax rather > >than you. > > > >Ken > > > > > > > > >
