Ok, I am not sure if what your saying is good or bad news. If a new chassis is required that means more time, but on the other hand that MIGHT mean other improvements too. Only time will tell. As far as the electronics go, it sounds like its unknown if the the electronics need any or minor changing as they are but they might if a new chassis has more interfaces or different ones than the current electronics permit. I think this is all as clear as mud at this point. Add the fact that there are other shortcomings in the electronics according to others (buffer probs?) I dont know about that because I am not a user but in any case whatever they do, they need to put the K/M lens communication back in there ( on at least one model)!
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: RE: Petition to Pentax? (was Re: How Pentax Could Survive) I just took a peek at the lens mount/mirror box on my D. The mirror box assembly currently precludes doing this mod without a redesigned mirror box. The current design offers no way for the coupler to pass through, even if cut away, there's not enough clearance by the looks of things. The mount ring itself is compatible though. It looks like the entire right-hand side of the mirror box would need a redesign to allow for the addition of the coupling. From this, I'd suspect that the only chance of adding this functionality would be in a new camera. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >Totally redesigned electronics? There would be no need to totally >redesign the electronics to add a simple single modification? Thats >certainly not necessary. nowadays there are a lot of processors and >controllers (most of >them?) that have a whole bunch of on chip ANALOG and digital inputs and this >part would only need one channel of those and it wouldnt even have to be a >good one, 8 bit analog/Digital >conversion would be more that sufficient. >Thats why I said all it would take is a >single A/D channel on the processor. > >What's confusing the issue is are you talking >about actually modifying the the istD exactly >as it is or a new CAMERA design which intends the feature >from scratch? A even new camera design which intendes the feature from >the start would NOT be a total redesign it would be a simple very minor >modification to get the sensor data to the processor, thats all. This >is way more simple than you are making it out to be, need for total >redesign is out of the question. I think you have to be using the wrong >terminology because thats beyond belief that you could really mean >that.. > >And one more thing, since we dont know when the decision >was made to not include the cam sensor in the camera >on the final production model, the interface electronics >may ALREADY there on the current design and ready to >go WITH ZERO CHANGES NEEDED AT ALL except adding the >pot assembly and the the software to read the pot and apply the desired >function, both of which are extremely simply processing... jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:59 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: RE: Petition to Pentax? (was Re: How Pentax Could Survive) > > >JCO: > >I honestly don't think it would help because I think >they ALREADY KNOW what they have done and the decision >was made with full knowledge. As to whether they >offer a DSLR body with full Pentax lens support, that's another >decision but if you think about it , they could probably charge a >couple of HUNDRED dollars more AND GET IT, for only a $5 part they took >away so > > > >REPLY: > >It is far more than a few dollars. Using the older resitor based lens >interface maens totally redesigned electronics. The metering and lens >comunication are totally digital with newer bodies. Complete K-mount >compatibility means building in two systems. In addition the production >cost are much higher with mechanical systems. Theres no way that Pentax >will buld in a complete mechanical interface with the lenses (in >addition to the electronic) on a product in a price sensitive market. >The reason is that the competition doesn't. If Pentax makes full lens >compatibility it will be on a high-end body. > >Pål > > > >
