Read what the heck I wrote (Hint, you just agreed with it). -Adam
P. J. Alling wrote: > I think you're wrong about that, based on the original documentation, > some of which still carries forward through cut and paste into the > current documentation the *ist-D was originally intended to have an > aperture simulator. It was removed relatively late in the design > process for marketing and economy reasons. The K100/110/10D may not > have been so designed, but in a digital system it would be relatively > easy to re-introduce. Pentax needs to know that it's desired and maybe > they will give it to us. Otherwise there's no likelihood at all. The > cost of an additional AD converter and programming would be considerably > less expensive than implementing SR. The light meter circuitry is the > simplest part of the camera and has the most in common with the previous > series, the biggest cost would be the packaging, (and I mean that in the > engineering sense not the actual box the camera comes in). > > Adam Maas wrote: > >> 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
