Ken,
As always I appreciate your glimpses over the inside. What I find
most interesting now is the hint to the build costs (point 2).
I suspect a major contribution to the cost was due to having to
maintain very low tolerances and this perhaps is associated with
manual assembly in
- Original Message -
From: Alin Flaider
Subject: On production cost (was Re: Future of DA lenses)
Anyway, a friend
recently disassembled several FA consumer zooms and was horrified to
find out large tolerances by design, alignment through shimming as a
rule, high wear plastic guiding
On 3/30/05 6:06 AM, Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always I appreciate your glimpses over the inside. What I find
most interesting now is the hint to the build costs (point 2).
I suspect a major contribution to the cost was due to having to
maintain very low tolerances and this
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, KT Takeshita wrote:
impossible to have a butter smooth MF feeling (oh, I miss my old M50/1.4)
with the AF capability :-). Unfortunately, we cannot have it in both ways.
Sorry I am going on a tangent: have you tried it with the 1.7AF
Adapter? AF 85/2.8 with solid metal
KT Takeshita wrote on 30.03.05 15:32:
Obviously, it is
impossible to have a butter smooth MF feeling (oh, I miss my old M50/1.4)
with the AF capability :-). Unfortunately, we cannot have it in both ways.
Not true :-) There are some AF lenses, which don't move focusing ring during
AF operation
On 30 Mar 2005 at 8:32, KT Takeshita wrote:
I do hope that the new DFA Macros are well built, not excessively like the
current one. Metal barrel is nice, but I no longer mind the plastic barrel as
long as it is solidly built.
It does conjure thoughts of how they might cut corners on any new
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
I do also find it intriguing that companies like Cosina can produce very high
quality lenses (optically and mechanically) then sell them at reasonable
prices
and still profit.
Can't comment on still profit, but there is one big difference:
target
On 3/30/05 9:49 AM, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does conjure thoughts of how they might cut corners on any new WA lenses
for
the soon to be arriving (LOL) 645D. I wonder if it will be profitable to
continue production of the current 645 lens line or maybe they are thinking
they
Alin Flaider wrote:
Ken,
As always I appreciate your glimpses over the inside. What I find
most interesting now is the hint to the build costs (point 2).
I suspect a major contribution to the cost was due to having to
maintain very low tolerances and this perhaps is associated with
The 14mm f/2.8 DA is like this too, which bodes well for the future lens
line-up.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30/03/05 15:13:20
Unfortunately, we cannot have it in both ways.
Not true :-) There are some AF lenses, which don't
none of my detailed references show them. i assume it must be because they
are privately held.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: On production cost (was Re: Future of DA
On 30 Mar 2005 at 21:03, Herb Chong wrote:
none of my detailed references show them. i assume it must be because they are
privately held.
Good for them then, they don't have the tortuous weight of the investment
market bearing down on them to produce unreasonable returns.
Rob Studdert
12 matches
Mail list logo
