On 15/9/04, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed: >I can think of 2 "technical" reasons why the mechanical coupling was not >employed in *istD & *istDS. > >1) Due to the unique design of the inner chassis (basically a few metal >sheets screwed together), there is no space for the coupling ring because >the lens mount was tightened onto the front metal sheet direct. Unlike the >old die cast structure which can afford the extra space for the coupling >ring, adding this mechanical ring between the metal sheet and the camera >mount is possible, but it is going to add more than just the ring itself, >but a whole new structure in between as well. This will increase the >manufacturing cost significantly, as well as weakening the link between the >camera and heavy lenses. > >2) For the same reason, there is no space for the aperture resistor required >for the mechanical coupling (takes too much space underneath the Pentax >logo). So there is actual technical reasons to omit this beloved design >which we have relied on for so many years, or at least I believe so. > >Alan Chan
Alan thanks for your detailed explanation and I would respectfully note your obvious eye for engineering detail, but at the end of the day... 'can't' means 'won't'.... best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
