Seemingly. When Intel makes a line of processors, it markets that line in multiple speeds. As the processors come off the line, a certain number (determined by marketing) are tested at the highest marketed speed. Those that pass are boxed and sold at that speed. Those that don't go back to the bin. Most that function pass. Then Intel tests a certain number (again determined by marketing) at the next lower speed and so on. They do this to maximize their profits from one line. This means that even the lowest speed processor off the line was designed for and probably would (not guaranteed) operate at the highest speed for which the line was designed. This led to the not too uncommon practice of "overclocking" lower rated CPU's. Intel now alters it's processors post testing so that they will only operate up to the packaged speed.
Asahi did not guarantee the accuracy of the unmarked speed, but unlike Intel, they did not prevent you from selecting it. It's about getting as much out of the market as you can with minimum change in tooling. Regards, Bob... -------------------- "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, they are also the company that left the 1000 shutter speed mark off > the dial to produce a cheaper camera. As I understand it the 1/1000 speed > worked, it just wasn't marked. Now that is weird marketing! > > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I've read at few places on the net, that an old SMC 55/2 K is the > > > best Pentax standard lens in terms of pure optical quality, > > > regardless of maximum aperture and other factors. Is that true? > > > > > Maximum aperture is not important for me at all, it is the f5.6 - > > > f11 kind of performance that I'm after - but of course, it would > > > be nice if it is also good wide open. > > > > Aleksandar: > > > > Regarding the K 55/2: I've never owned that exact lens, but I have > > owned one of the K 55/1.8 lenses. However, the two lenses are > > really the same - both are actually f/1.8 lenses, except that Pentax > > took some of the 55/1.8's and added a restrictive baffle to them to > > reduce the aperture to f/2, in order to sell them at a lower price > > (leaving the "faster" 85/1.8's to sell higher as "premium" 55mm > > lenses). Strange marketing concept, but remember that this is > > Pentax we're discussing here, right? <g> > > > > Anyway, when testing the resolution of that one K 55/1.8 that I had, > > I found it was fairly soft at larger apertures, but that it became > > quite sharp starting at f/8 (but not at f/5.6, where it was still > > somewhat soft). The most unusual thing about the lens was that it > > changed so ~dramatically~ going from f/5.6 to f/8. Unfortunately, > > its sharpness advantage compared to all the other normal lenses I > > tested occurred only in the center - its edge sharpness was > > sometimes less than that of some of the newer Pentax MF normal > > lenses. > > > > Remember, though, that these were only the results of testing one of > > these lenses against all the others. See > > <http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm>. > > > > All in all, I still think that the ~A~ 50/1.4 is the best all-around > > Pentax normal lens (and I guess that the F and FA versions are > > optically identical) (but it seems as if the K and M versions are > > not quite the same). - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
