> > You're right, John, > > We should call it a "differently-abled mount". Or maybe a "special mount". > > I'm starting to feel better about it already...
Well, in all honesty, we don't know what the real story is. But, in any case, it's about time Pentax started using modern technology. It was twenty-five years ago that mechanical shutter timing was abandoned in favour of electronic timing (and, since the Super Program, there has not even been a mechanical fall-back speed). At the time the Super Program was introduced Pentax added the electronic contacts to read maximum aperture, rather than relying on the mechanical contact, and a predictable method of setting aperture from the body. This still relied on mechanical coupling, so had a certain level of imprecision (1/2 to 1/3 stop, according to folks on the list), but at least it fixed the one-stop indeterminacy that the variable-aperture zooms gave us. I believe the FA lenses also incorporate aperture-sensing encoders on the inner mechanism, so it is possible for such a lens to accurately report aperture setting over the digital communication pin. I fully expect to see a future Pentax body that relies on some such capability to control aperture, rather than the mechanical method used today. (Whether such a body will work with "A" lenses is an interesting point). I see moving to the precision of electronic communication and control as a positive step, rather than relying on the mechanical techniques appropriate for twenty-five years ago, with all their inaccuracies. What would an all-electronic mount look like? I think we've seen it. So which mount is "crippled"? The one that offers the capability of full- precison, error-free control, or the one that relies on mechanical aids?
