It sure as hell doesn't show. It's easy to design in. Especially on a mechanical camera. It's not easy to add later if it was left out of the initial design. Simple as that.
-Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Regarding your comment about electronics engineering, > I WORKED in an enginnering lab for over 20 years so > I do know what I am talking about. This is nothing > More than a simple positional sensor that is a hell > Of a lot easier than you make it out to be. $100 > Cameras had it for Christ's sake. Its really easy > With the K mount because the lens is consistantly > Aligned to the body so the sensor can be fixed to the > Body also. Its far less complex than the one in > The spotmatic F from 30 years ago and they provided > That didn't they? > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in > mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror > box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money. > > And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the > > price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is > SR). > > Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras > is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production > costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and > are less reliable (more stuff to break). > > You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. > Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the > integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box. > > The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added > easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously > designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at > some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this > in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said, > > if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be > much less to add it afterwords) > > > -Adam > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100 >> Complete camera? >> >> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"? >> They did this already in film camerras, duh. >> >> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake >> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100. >> >> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly >> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so >> Simple and cheap. >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of >> William Robb >> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The JCO survey >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" >> Subject: RE: The JCO survey >> >> >>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price >>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera >>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the >>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor. >> What would it cost per camera? >> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer >> as? >> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well. >> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing > it >> vs. the number of sales lost on price point. >> >> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know. >> What are the numbers, John? >> >> William Robb >> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
