Accuracy is no more guaranteed with a mechanical system entirely in the
lens than with some of it in the camera body and part in the lens. It's
still an electro mechanical system. The only advantage is that it makes
some things easier to design or manufacture. It's much like front
engine drive automobiles. The cost much less to manufacture and
design. Repair becomes much more problematic, and the advantage to the
driver isn't necessarily that great. But the propaganda continues.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>lol
>
>I'd like to see them be brave and design new lenses with completely
>electronic couplings and iris actuators. Forget all that inaccurate,
>slow, old fashioned mechanical stuff.
>
>]'-)
>
>G
>
>On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:03 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>
>>We'll see USM in Pentax when the aperture simulator returns...
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is purely speculation but...
>>>It would make sense to introduce new teleconverters when USM lenses
>>>start appearing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, I guess a 300/4 would do particularly if Pentax (finally)
>>>>make a
>>>>matching 1,4X AF converter...
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
