Frame's different, Control layout is similar. Shutter's the same,
meter's the same AF unit's the same, like the AF motor is as well. A
number of controls are common between the two. IE the mechanical parts
are fairly common between the two, but the frame is entirely different,
as is the viewfinder. I'd expect that most of the hardware in the mirror
box is common between the two cameras.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
Adding this capability to a design that lacks it is not nearly as
simple as you seem to think. And the DSLR's are built off a platform
that lacked this capability to begin with (The *ist, which shares
most of its mechanicsw ith teh DSLR's, although the frames are
substantially different).
Where the hell do you get that? Have you even held an *ist and *ist-D
at the same time. The two cameras are very different, a fact that was
pointed out by a number of reviewers when they were both released.
Adam Maas wrote:
Hardware is certainly harder to integrate. With hardware you have the
software integration issues still (Since you've got to add support to
the firmware for the hardware you've added) plus you need to find
space for the hardware, ensure it doesn't interfere with any other
hardware and ensure it is electrically compatible with the hardware,
and this is something that essentially needs to be done with any
fresh design (Even if the interface specs are identical, like the K
mount). I'll pretty much guarantee that the implementation of the
aperture coupling is different(Although similar) from model-line to
model-line. You can't just drop the hardware from a MZ-6 into an *ist
D and call it a day.
Software, especially when it's simply piggybacking on already
existent functionality like the Green-Button solution, is much easier
to add as long as you have sufficient storage and CPU power. The
green-button fix is likely a module or two drawing functions from the
DoF code and the pre-existing Green-button code to make it stop-down
meter then set Tv (the latter portion of the code already existed as
part of the Green Button functionality in M mode with fully-supported
lenses)
And testing is a whole othe rball of wax.
Adding this capability to a design that lacks it is not nearly as
simple as you seem to think. And the DSLR's are built off a platform
that lacked this capability to begin with (The *ist, which shares
most of its mechanicsw ith teh DSLR's, although the frames are
substantially different).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Hardware is harder to integrate? Where do you
come with this crap? Hardware or software
difficulty depends on the task, sometimes
hardware is much easier solution. The firmware
"patch" is a bandaid not a fix.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September
19, 2005 9:03 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: more green button wars
While the lenses do exist, the number of owners looking to buy into
Digital or modern film are a fairly small fraction of the current
market. Barely worth supporting, and not worth the extra engineering
required to integrate the extra functionality into the design
(Hardware is always harder to integrate than firmware, hence the
firmware fix).
-Adam
