I just picked up a KX I have on display here in the bedroom and the cam sensor is seen a ring the same size as the lens throat just behind the lens flange and its about 8mm thick, are you sure this area is obstructed and by what? the reason I ask is the cameras have the same size mount and same flange to sensor/film plane distance so I dont understand why there is now no room. I need to see it to see what they did to obstruct that area if its like you say it is. what's there? jco.
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: RE: Petition to Pentax? (was Re: How Pentax Could Survive) The Chassis may or may not need modification (I didn't disassemble it, just checked it visually), but the mirror box moulding does, which means a new mould, which means a $200,000+ change (Cutting a mould isn't cheap) -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
