----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 13 September 2002 12:01 AM Subject: Re: NEW PENTAX PATENTS!!!: The gobbledegook and my humbletranslations...More...
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:23:04 +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: > > > > >Whoa! You're counting your chickens before they hatch. From the qoute > >you've supplied it seems like Pentax have found a means to multiplex the > >data streams of 3 in-lens-devices (eg. power zoom motor, focussing motor and > >IS system) through one connection which is presumably the power-zoom > >contacts that we already know about from the Z/PZ series. > > I really don't think so! > > These contacts only supply POWER to the lens (power-zoom) and that power > could be used by any 'device' in the lens that needs it. > (Which is why these contact are so large and rigid) > > The intelligence needed to CONTROL the devices is thrue one of the other > smaller pins in the lens mount. One of those is a serial (digital) interface > that can carry information about anything the lens and body agree upon. > Jan, Perhaps the POWER contacts only carry power (at present at least) and the CONTROL is through a different "serial interface" pin, but I don't see the point of your contradiction of my interpretation. You should notice that I wrote "contacts". Plural, not singular. I haven't memorized the pin layouts but I never, ever suggested that only one pin was used. I did write that it was through one connection so the inference that I meant only one pin was too easy to assume. That was my fault for making a superficial explanation. Consider that a mains electrical plug is one "connection" but uses three pins. Serial, parallel and SCSI connectors can each be called a single connection but they are comprised of very many pins. The gist of what I said was that (I believe) the in-lens-devices share their links to the camera, whether for power supply or data transfer, and that Pentax engineers have created a module or protocol, which they call the "lens controller" to ensure that only the appropriate device responds to any particular data communication from camera body to lens. > > Apparently (my > >guess, that is) there is some method of inhibiting a device from acting in > >response to received data if that data was intended for a different kind of > >device. This doesn't imply that more PZ lenses are in the offing, only that > >a means has been found to prevent your current PZ lens from inappropriately > >zooming when it receives a signal intended for the focussing device or IS > >device of an as yet unreleased lens. > > IS and USM can use the same power-source, and I don't see a reason why > anymore pins would be needed to exchange information. > > They just need to expand the protocol on that serial connection, and if the engineers > at pentax deserve that name, they will have designed it to be expandable. > This part of your response is in essence a reiteration of what I wrote, but also contradicts your earlier position. You first pointed out that I had understated the number of contacts, because I described the separate POWER and CONTROL contacts as one connection. Then you refute the need for "anymore pins .... to exchange information", but I never, ever predicted that "anymore pins" were required. Most importantly, I was attempting to communicate the CONCEPT of this patent in respect of the possibility of more power zoom lenses, not the details of its operation. I was warning Cam Hood not to get his hopes up for new power zoom lenses. I feel that Pentax mentioned power zoom only because the controller needs to accommodate the presence of old devices on the connection, in the best tradition of Pentax backwards compatability that we know and love. Regards, Anthony Farr
