I disagree with you on the cost of the pot or the type of spring. the spring only keeps the cam sensor firmly on the lens cam so that's not a precision part at all. And the pot is a simple linear motion deal which is not critical at all either. THAT'S WHY THESE PARTS were in even the very cheapest film bodies for years. DIRT CHEAP. Way Way cheaper than the other engineering costs and parts that are in the rest of the DSLR body.
As for these recent crippled mounts, if you care about these things why not buy like new older bodies with all the features you want or a higher model? At least you can do that, with with the DSLRs you don't have either option. jco -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm The film *ist, MZ-60 and MZ-50 all share the same 'crippled' KAF mount as the DSLR's. The MZ-60 won't even release the shutter with K/M lenses attached. Neither the *ist or MZ-50 offer any more compatibility with K/M lenses than the *ist D did before the Green Button firmware was released (1.10), whihc means that the only usable shooting mode on them with K/M lenses is Av mode with the lens wide open. They're significantly more crippled with these lenses than Digital bodies are. Considering that 50% or more of the current line of Pentax SLR's are crippled this way (Different Pentax sites differ on whether the MZ-6 is a current product, and it's the only AF SLR in the line without a crippled mount, the MZ-M is the only model I can verify is both current and includes an uncrippled mount) I'd be complaining much more about the film bodies athn the digital, especially when the digitals offer a slightly inconvenient workaround to the film bodies lack of workaround. As to the 'cheap pot and a single A/D channel', well that's a heck of a lot more expensive than the single electrical contact and data channel that's already being used for other stuff. And there's a fair bit of precision necessary, so it's an expensive pot and calibrated spring, not a cheap one. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >See my last post, your entire second paragraph is >WRONG because these are NOT expensive mechanical >couplings ( even bottom line cameras like K1000/P3 >has it) it's a super simple dirt cheap pot, spring, and >and a single A/D channel. you know what that >costs nowadays? Virtually nothing compared to the many >other extremely complex and expensive parts and engineering in the DSLR. I >am not >saying it wouldn't add ANY cost to the body >but there is something called "VALUE ADDED TO CUSTOMER" >in engineering and production. The VALUE ADDED TO CUSTOMER >to the body by incorporating this virtually >no cost item is HUGE compared to the TINY TINY cost of >adding it and it should be done ON AT LEAST ONE >OF THE DSLR BODIES in my opinion. > >Secondly, your last comment makes no sense to me because >the film bodies with AE don't need a green button, >with AE and AE lock you already have something >better than green button because its like the green >button is being continously done for you all the >time so why would you want that on those bodies? > >JCO > >
