Originally posted by psoo When I finally met him and asked about the problem he said he knew of it but that it was a very rare.
Now you know what Pentax has to say about it.
The inference is that the forum has way overblown this issue and the corollary to that is, the forum way overblows many issues, such as the "star eating" K-1ii.
Does it surprise me that Pentax says it is very rate? Not even a little. It's always been my suspicion. But on the forum, 100 out of 70,000 users can make a lot of noise.
Quote: I'm not sure if he really knew about it or not
.
What answer could he have possibly come up with that you would have believed?
Why even ask?
This pretty much confirms what I always thought. Only now you have a Pentax technician confirming it. Sometimes you're just unlucky, and it's not everyone else's problem.
But I don't suspect that this will in any way slow down all the aperture block discussion. Not that it makes any difference to me personally. I stopped following them months ago when it became apparent it was a relatively isolated occurrence. And there have been reports of original DA*16-50s having their tenth birthdays without an SDM failure. The forum wisdom seemed to be that should be impossible.
They even had me believing it for a while.
Originally posted by runswithsizzers but that Pentax never acknowledged that there was a problem.
Some people's "problem" is other people's "well within expected standards of failure for that part" issue. Maybe Pentax never acknowledged the "problem" because from the analysis of parts sold to their repair techs, there never was a problem.
What part of "very rare" is it you guys don't understand?