(with brief instructions in Chinese, Google English Translation Here)
Note that the "hacker" has successfully re-assemble his K10D unit afterwards. It seems that he has very good techniques and skills.
Besides, the same "hacker" also dissembled his Nikon D80 and posted the photos before:-
http://dcbbs.zol.com.cn/1/37_241.html
If the design of the Nikon is compared to the Pentax, one obvious thing is that it can be seen that the electromagnetic shielding and grounding of Nikon is done in a much better and more complete/robust way than the Pentax, which probably could improve noise and can provide better electromagnetic interference immunity. See this:-
(Inside the Nikon D80)Related:-
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/search/label/Camera%20Hacking
Logging you in...
Sukram · 723 weeks ago
R.E. · 722 weeks ago
Or one can say that the Pentax is a much quieter (EMI wise) camera and doesn't need the extra shielding to comply with EMI standards because its electronics and layout are designed to eliminate as much as possible RF emissions.
You do realise every electronic product needs to comply with EMI standards don't you?
I support my conclusion based on the fact that the shielding is enclosing the electronics. IOW, its to either:
1) Prevent emissions for compliance or
2) Prevent the product from being affected by other devices emissions.
In both cases the proper design and layout of the electronics reduces the need for extra shielding.
So I would argue that either the Pentax product is better designed or the Nikon has shielding when it doesn't need it.
Your statement that "it can improve noise" is however pretty spot on. By placing shielding around electronics you can in fact increase the noise internally while reducing it externally. That's what you meant by "improve noise" isn't it? That the Nikon may have more noise?
The reality is more likely that both comply to EMI standards and both have well designed electronics and layouts. As to why one has more shielding than the other, its because they were designed that way. Why were they designed that way is a question for the R&D team. Its however completely impossible to guess the result of one vs the other unless you actually tried and tested both with and without shields. Even the Senior Design engineers can't give you that answer without testing the two and comparing the results so there is simply no point in us even trying based on photos of the shielding. Two completely different electronic circuits and thus layouts cannot be compared in the manner you are attempting when you consider that you can layout the same circuit in a different way and get totally different results. Sometimes one PCB track change/component position can affect performance of the exact same circuit significantly that it needs shielding to pass EMI compliance or not.
RiceHigh 110p · 721 weeks ago
> 1) Prevent emissions for compliance or
> 2) Prevent the product from being affected by other devices emissions.
3) Prevent RFI amongst different components and modules on-board. (Don't just know to remember the EMC definitions of the relevant IEC/EN Clauses, most of the time Engineering should be more than those!)
> In both cases the proper design and layout of the electronics reduces the need for extra shielding.
> So I would argue that either the Pentax product is better designed or the Nikon has shielding when it doesn't need it.
I don't think such argument is valid as we just don't know which layout is better by itself. Assuming identical design, without any doubt, the extra shielding will NOT hurt!
> Your statement that "it can improve noise" is however pretty spot on. By placing shielding around electronics you can in fact increase the noise internally while reducing it externally. That's what you meant by "improve noise" isn't it? That the Nikon may have more noise?
Do you mean that an EMI shielded room is noisier inside than the outside then?! :-o Lol..
Nick · 722 weeks ago
I am an EE and develop handsets and mobile devices. Your statement about sheilding cannot be substantiated for various reasons such as component placement (only certain parts need to be sheilded) and is pure speculation unless you ran an EMI test in a sheilded room. Do you have such a thing and did you conduct a test?
RiceHigh 110p · 721 weeks ago
Alex · 721 weeks ago
He only said "Your statement about shielding cannot be substantiated [...] and is pure speculation" - with which I agree. YOU are the one making assumptions, YOU must substantiate them.
But you can't, can you?