Peter J. Alling wrote:
Looks like it's Rob's point, especially since the late and in some quarters lamented MZ-D apparently had full K mount compatibility.
What you're saying is, a digi camera body the size of the MZ-D had the room, and they did it, why not the ist-DS?
I don't know how the MZ-D compared to the ist-DS.
The -D is considered small, in comparison to a number of cameras. The -DS is even smaller than that...
So, I couldn't judge unless I was privy to a phantom or breakaway view of them, side by side.
I think that if the design team had approached the system design with including K-mount capability from the beginning, what you say is true.
However, if the design was essentially complete when the question arose--what about the K-mount backward compatibility?
Stranger things have happened with new products...
We may someday know the truth.
keith
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 at 19:24, Keith Whaley wrote:
Ha, ha... I knew you'd say that... No disrespect meant, Rob.
You have a background in engineering, can you seriously imagine a reason why it wouldn't have been practical or economical to implement given it's inclusion on most all previous K mount bodies? The camera is essentially a mechanical film body without a film advance and with an electronic sensor in place of the film. There is no more going on around the mount area than on any previous K mount bodies. The interface to the electronic system would have been a doddle and so would the software integration. Lets face they though it enough of a problem for the punters to implement the "green button" kludge after the fact . I bet that cause some debate and consternation in house, particularly in marketing (as they had essentially won to that point). My speculation only of course but I haven't heard any more logical arguments to date.
Rob Studdert
