"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 15 Sep 2004 at 19:24, Keith Whaley wrote: > >> Ha, ha... I knew you'd say that... >> No disrespect meant, Rob. > >You have a background in engineering, can you seriously imagine a reason why it >wouldn't have been practical or economical to implement given it's inclusion on >most all previous K mount bodies?
Yes: The *vastly* lower profit margins on digital SLR's. Even if it only cost $10.00 to implement, that would make it too expensive for the ist-Ds. I expect it was left off the original ist-D partly for that reason, partly to maintain consistent lens mounts on the digital bodies and partly to SELL NEW LENSES. They are making little or no profit on the digital bodies. (I suspect Pentax lost money on the original ist-D, given the R&D costs and its selling price.)
