No, the aperture ring on F and FA lenses is mechanical, not electronic as on the PanaLeica 4/3rds lens(es).
-Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > The F and Fa lenses already report that set aperture to the camera body, > if it wishes to read it. They could be used entirely electronically as > is the new Panasonic/Leica 4/3 duo. No real complication at all, the > extra control costs pennies to implement, and Pentax keeps is promise > about keeping aperture rings on DFA lenses while still screwing film > body users. Everybody wins! > > John Francis wrote: > > >>On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 10:19:57AM -0400, K.Takeshita wrote: >> >> >> >>>Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason to make it >>>>>DFA, though. DA will make it smaller, cheaper and just as good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jostein >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Actually, the size constraints on a 400 are all in the glass diameter >>>>(for a given aperture), format is essentially irrelevant to this, at >>>>least until you start talking LF, so there's zero reason to make it a DA >>>>lens since it will be the same size anyways. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Exactly. After certain size (say 200mm or so), there is no reason to make >>>it a DA. >>>Still some hope for FF wishers :-). >>> >>> >> >>I thought a significant difference between DA and DFA was the presence >>of an aperture ring. Sure, longer focal lengths are going to have an >>image circle larger than an APS-sized sensor. But that in itself isn't >>enough to make it a DFA lens. >> >>If, as we expect, these new lenses incorporate a new auto-focus mechanism >>then they are designed for use mainly on new cameras. As such, I doubt >>that Pentax would bother with the extra complication of an aperture ring. >> >> >> >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
