>> Motor Drive LX >> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1382196827 > >Speaking of Motor Drive LX ... I was in a photo shop the other day and >they had the Motor Drive setup for an LX. I had seen the rechargable >battery packs for it before, but they had a mammoth beast of a battery >grip which stood 6 or more inches tall and took 12 AA batteries. This >things looked incredibly unwieldly. Anyone know Pentax's reasoning in >building it like they did? Why not make it flat and fit to the bottom of >the Motor Drive, instead of sticking out?
I'll take a stab at this, but it seems pretty simple really. Basics: Basically, the Motor Drive LX ,and indeed the drive for the MX, are basically quite similar, even though far from identical. The fundamental difference is that in the LX drive, the actual motor is in the base unit itself, and so has no 'grip' part. The MX drive has the motor in a vertical grip part, and conversely the base part is much slimmer than the LX drive. This is because the MX doesn't have add-on grips like the Grip B, etc. The LX does, and it must have seemed reasonable at the time to design the drive based on this. Hence a Motor Drive MX needs only the drive and a NiCad underneath, whereas the LX needs both those, and a Grip B etc to achieve the same form. Of course, you don't *need* the Grip B... Aside from NiCad battery packs, how would you power the drive? The designers probably tossed this one over in their minds for a few sleepless nights. Viz: ' Look, you *have* to provide a cheaper alternative to full professional concepts like expensive NiCad packs. Even if only as a failsafe. So that means hardware that basic consumers can get a hold of. Like AA batteries. Fine: AA batteries - right that's the given. Now what form factor can we come up with? If we make it like the Nicad pack, IE: stick all the batteries underneath the camera, it's going to look mighty silly, in fact [due to the power requirements of a 5 fps drive] we're gonna need 12 of the mothers. If we stack 12 AAs underneath, that's going to make an AA pack about 3 or 4 inchesd tall! Won't work. Where the heck are we gonna put 12 AAs??' And then some bright spark is inspired. 'I know: we'll double it up as a ceremonial Bull Elephant Tusk. No wait - how about this: a handle, underneath?' [And so the Battery Pack MX was born. Peter at CamDir will correct me cos I think that's not entirely the right nomenclature, but probably close. Anyway, there it is. It's basically a way of shoe-horning 12 AA batteries together in a manner that doesn't make it look entirely ridiculous when attached underneath a camera. I think it was designed for the MX rather than the LX, and I'm not sure it will even attach to thje LX drive. Peter? Anyone?] What were their alternatives? 1. To have a seperate pack with cord attached to camera. The amateur market would not accept that. Pros would, and do (think external flash batteries). 2. To have a much less powerful energy source, say 4 AAs. That would give you 5 fps for, in fact, 5 frames... okay, we'll call that a winder at 2 fps instead ;-) 3. To not have an AA pack at all. I think they did pretty well considering the parameters. What gets me is this: when was that battery grip designed? And what do you see festooning the checkout at Toys R Us even today? At this rate, I would estimate that the diminutive AA battery will be still with us in another 25 years. What does that say for battery technology? (You can tell I'm in a writing mood) Cotty ____________________________________ Oh swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ ____________________________________ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ ____________________________________
