In a high volume situation, I would agree with you since you can
amortize the cost of everything I mentioned over the run of the camera.
But these are not high volume cameras, esp not the *istD. Of course
both of us have no idea of what the actual cost is both from the
development side to the manufacturing side, so we are just speculating
anyways. We cannot make a blanket statement either way on whether or
not cost was an issue here.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes it does but it does for every one of many many
components in the camera and this is an extremely
sophisticated camera that sells for only $600
so I do not agree that the cost savings of this
part removal was signifigant at all to justify
its removal considering the big loss in fuctionality
it causes in K mount lenses - unless of course
they WANTED to cause a loss of functionality
in K mount lenses and I really only see that
now as the only logical motivation for doing what
they did. It wasn't to save money or lower the
selling price because that part isnt expensive
to buy or implement into the system whatsoever.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:49 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Rename request
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
see my last post, engineering dollars?
that cam sensor was engineered 35 years
ago dude. Do you even know what we are
talking about here? Its ONE pot with
three wires on it read by a single A./D channel?
That's freakin' childs play.
Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the R&D is already
paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique
firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and R&D) that has to be added
to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta
cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be
documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that
extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more
powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel
plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life,
more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence
requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in
all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture
simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure.
rg
