On 11/28/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: > > >On 11/28/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> It's a revision of the flash unit's hardware/firmware to work with a > >> new device, one that didn't exist when the flash unit was designed. > >> That's an "upgrade" in my book. > > > >Well considering the Pentax AF-360 FGZ pre dates the release of the > >K10D by quite some time, and works without any reported problems, > >Sigma obviously did something dodgy if they need to upgrade it to work > >with the new K series DSLR's. > > It's not a matter of doing something dodgy, it's a matter of not being > privy to the infromation that the engineers inside Pentax have when > they design a camera or flash: The designers of the K10D they had > access to the actual code used in the AF360FGZ, so they could guarantee > compatibility. > > This kind of thing is particularly tricky when working with something > like digital communication between a flash and a camera body. As far as > I know, no one besides Sigma has even tried to make P-TTL-compatible > flashes for Pentax, probably for precisely this reason.
Maybe dodgy is a bit harsh. Their backwards engineering division isn't backward enough. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
