An interesting rhetorical device, changing the point from the technical and or marketing reason to not include a feature to criticizing the form factor as not being able to contain it. A bush league debating trick which I'm not even going to answer. Simply put changing the subject doesn't improve you original position. There was no valid technical reason and only the sleaziest of marketing reasons to not include the mechanical coupling. Defending them does you no credit. Backward compatibility may have been an after though but that seems to be a stretch based on Pentax's previous offerings and literature.

Personally I plan on buying a *ist-d[x] at some point, it is currently the only game in town if I want to stay with Pentax. However the Current *ist-D is in my opinion overpriced for a device that leaves off one of my most important features, (and you read my previous post incorrectly if you thought I felt the green button was onerous, it is annoying though since there were even better solutions to the stop down metering problem than it implemented and even more annoying since I believe that the mechanical coupling was dropped after being included in the original design). I am waiting to see if the next *ist-D version has the green button and the high frame rate of the *ist-Ds, at a minimum.

Keith Whaley wrote:



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





--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke





Reply via email to