It's obstructed by the Mirror box wall, which does not appear to allow
for the ring to be installed. The mirror box is flush with the back of
the lensmount ring except for gaps for the spring clips on the back of
the bayonet flanges.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
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 don’t 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 don’t
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? That’s
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 wouldn’t even have to
be a good one, 8 bit analog/Digital conversion would be more that
sufficient. That’s 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, that’s 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 that’s beyond belief that you could really mean
that..
And one more thing, since we don’t 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
