you don't know the price of what one a/d channel costs becauses its WAY cheaper than the old way of doing it via all hardware like in the K1000 not more expensive. And yes the new camera is VERY VERY COMPLICATED an only costs $600 total so removal of this dirt cheap and VERY VERY SIMPLE part makes sense because it would save almost no time or money in the final design and price. Do you know how this cam sensor works? Its just a VERY VERY simple exposure compensation vs rotataion of he aperture ring. THATS ALL. That's several orders of magnitude less complex than the rest of camera design so I DO NOT agree this is a valid argument whatsoever neither the cost issue or the development issue. Its about almost as simple as function button. maybe one nothc above... jco
-----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rename request The main reason that they were so cheap is that those cameras did not have microprocessors, A/D channels, firmware, lcds, ccds, etc. And they did not have to deal with auto focus, sophisticated program modes, metering modes, etc. The cost in the new cameras is much greater because it adds another dimension to an already very complicated problem. That costs money not only in R&D, manufacturing, parts, documentation, testing, etc. rg J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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 > >
