YES WE CAN- there is a long history of these parts in bottom of the line PENTAX cameras that sold for only $150 FOR THE WHOLE CAMERA....How much do you think that parts maximum cost could have been for that to be possible?
jco -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rename request In a high volume situation, I would agree with you since you can amortize the cost of everything I mentioned over the run of the camera. But these are not high volume cameras, esp not the *istD. Of course both of us have no idea of what the actual cost is both from the development side to the manufacturing side, so we are just speculating anyways. We cannot make a blanket statement either way on whether or not cost was an issue here. rg J. C. O'Connell wrote: > yes it does but it does for every one of many many > components in the camera and this is an extremely sophisticated camera > that sells for only $600 so I do not agree that the cost savings of > this part removal was signifigant at all to justify > its removal considering the big loss in fuctionality > it causes in K mount lenses - unless of course > they WANTED to cause a loss of functionality > in K mount lenses and I really only see that > now as the only logical motivation for doing what > they did. It wasn't to save money or lower the > selling price because that part isnt expensive > to buy or implement into the system whatsoever. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rename request > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >>see my last post, engineering dollars? >>that cam sensor was engineered 35 years >>ago dude. Do you even know what we are >>talking about here? Its ONE pot with >>three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? >>That's freakin' childs play. >> > > Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the R&D is > already > paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique > firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and R&D) that has to be added > to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta > cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be > documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that > extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more > powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel > plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life, > more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence > requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in > all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture > simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure. > > rg >
