Bruce, I thought I would ignore your usual ever subtle shift in contentions after taking hits from others, but cannot resist :-).
You are not contending that optical alignment is critical. Everybody knows that. You are not the only one to know it. You are not contending that any lens repositioning mechanism is prone to failure. Everybody knows that. You are not the only one to know it. Your real problem is shown below (and everywhere else in your posts on this thread, including the one that started it). Your usual problem in admitting any accomplishment by Pentax is the real underlying problem which masks the real contention and I was trying to uncover. > Pentax had to > spend a lot of time and money, to avoid taking too much of a performance > hit, do something for the sake of fashion and marketing. In a number of > markets it will sell very well because it is cool. You used the word such as cool, fashion, gimmick and tail fins etc to describe what Pentax accomplished for this particular model of digicam. Combine this twisted sentiment with plausible engineering argument ? Nonsense. Technically, you are still talking about the generality (prone to failure argument which everybody can state) but none of us here has any bases to examine this with sound engineering and quantitatively the degree of the difficulty to achieve the lens alignment etc. Showing how the lens is made and how the alignment is checked in the manufacturing process has no relevance to your contention here because nobody was questioning it. So, knock it off. You are not an optical nor electro-mechanical engineer. The complexity of the cut-out diagram might have scared you, but it does not tell much to anybody. As someone here said, the sensible statement is "nice feature and looks cool. But the only the time will tell if this would work". I am in full agreement with that statement. Ken
