You still have to put in the focal length for SR, the aperture simulator is not going to help you there. In fact, you could make the firmware remember your lens history and let you select from that for much quicker setup when you power on.
With the new bodies, you cannot do multi-segment metering with the old lenses, the aperture simulator is not going help you there either. Plus, knowing the characteristics of the lens can help you do things in the firmware the the aperture simulator couldnt possibly do, like do distortion correction in the firmware, or vignetting compensation, etc. It may be seem to be messy, but you do it ONCE per lens (or you could skip it because it would come with default tables) and your done. After that, you simply dial in the lens you are using and you get max functionality. And to answer your more direct question why: because it would be redundant, the tables would provide the equivalent function. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But why, your autocalibration for each lens is > Not as smooth an integration as the simple > Cam sensor would be. There is no need to > do it from the body. The user would also have > to input the absolute maximum apeture too. Its > messy compared to simple lens cam sensor > and mounting ANY K/M lens you please without > having to change any settings or run calibrations. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Gonz > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:39 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux > > My point is not that Pentax would do it, my point is that it could be > done. That way they could do away with the simulator if they wanted to > continue moving forward with the concept of controlling the lens from > the body. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yes each lens could be autocalibrated but I doubt >>Pentax would be willing to go that far if they >>Wont even provide something as simple and cheap >>As the cam sensor which would eliminate the need >>For any calibration with any K/M lenses. That's how >>The were designed to be used anyway. >>jco >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of > >>Gonz >>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:59 PM >>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux >> >>I bet you'll find that due to mass production, the sample variation is > > >>not significant. Even though the "A" lenses might be calibrated that >>way, its still the same basic concept. I've found that while using > > the > >>aperture ring is more accurate even for "A" lenses, its not off by > > that > >>much, maybe 1/3 stop on worst case. Its probably similar to the K/M >>lenses. Besides you could autocalibrate your lens and write the table > > >>back into the firmware. Problem solved. >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>>What I said is they are not all the SAME >>>Non linearity. Not enough consistancy >>>>From sample to sample and lens model to lens >>>Model to allow it. Non linearity isnt the >>>Problem, non consistancy is because they >>>Were all designed to use "digitally" (fully >>>Closed or fully open with regard to the aperture >>>Actuator). >>>jco >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> >>Of >> >> >>>Gonz >>>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:24 PM >>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux >>> >>>"A" lenses are no different, except that the actuator is linear. If >> >>you >> >> >>>put your M or K lense on f22 and move the actuator, it acts the same >>>way. Since they have to at least work with the mechanical stop based >>>method, this means that they are machined to at least this accuracy. >> >>So >> >> >>>it should work, I disagree with you. >>> >>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't think this is possible because K/M >>>>Lenses were not designed for partial closure >>>>Of the aperture and do not have consistant >>>>Non linear closure from sample to sample. It >>>>Was a simple OPEN/CLOSE/OPEN design. >>>>jco >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> >>>Of >>> >>> >>> >>>>Gonz >>>>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:47 PM >>>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>Subject: Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux >>>> >>>>The firmware on the Samsungs is definitely different, see the pics >>>>floating around for the K10D samsung equivalent. The UI is > > distinctly > >>> >>>>different. >>>> >>>>If the firmware is different, then they could actually implement the >>>>whole aperture simulator thing in firmware if I understand correctly >>> >>>how >>> >>> >>> >>>>its supposed to work. The way you could do it is by inputing the lens > > >>>>being used, say K50 1.4 into the body UI when you powered up the >>> >>>camera. >>> >>> >>> >>>>All they would need would be the actual non-linear response of the >>>>aperture linkage (which would be in a table in the firmware) and they > > >>>>could close down the aperture to the correct position as dialed in by > > >>>>the user on the body. The user would have to set the lens to f22 or >>>>whatever the min on the lens is, effectively mimicing the "A" > > setting. > >>> >>>>Knowing exactly what lens is mounted would be used not only for the >>>>aperture response, but the focal length for SR, the wide open >>> >>>aperture, >>> >>> >>> >>>>and possibly even used for multi-segment metering. >>>> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Umm.... Hello! It's another moot question! Samsung bodies are, > > and > >> >>>>>will always be, re-named Pentax bodies. They will not produce a >>>> >>>>unique >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>k-mount body. Stop with the surveys and get a grip. >>>>> >>>> >>>> > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
