it does seem counter intuitive when you first hear it doesn't it?

It's somewhat hard to explain without going into physics mode, but I'll do my best.

As you know, every time light hits a glass-air surface, a certain amount of it is reflected back. Uncoated glass in air will reflect approximately 4% (at this point I may have got my maths wrong earlier, I'm not totally sure if it's 4% per surface or 4% per element (2 surfaces), I assumed 4% per element). Total light transmission is therefore 96% to the power of the number of elements in the lens, 0.96^10 = 0.66, 66%

Coated glass takes advantage of the wave nature of light to reduce this. The amount of light reflected at a surface is controlled by the difference in refractive index between the two media (glass and air or coating). By picking your coating material carefully, and having a coating exactly 1/4 wavelength thick, you can arrange for the light reflected from the second surface to be exactly out of phase with the light reflected from the first surface. These two reflections then cancel out. Since energy is always conserved, and nothing is now being reflected, all the light has to be transmitted through the system.

In practice there are various reasons why it can't be done with just one coating, there isn't usually a material of exactly the right refractive index, and the coating would need to be a different thickness to be effective for different colours. By stacking several coatings, Pentax SMC is able to get the transmission rate up to 99.8% (again not sure if thats per surface or per element, I have assumed the latter) which gives the same 10 element lens coated with Pentax SMC a total transmission ratio of 98%.

Incidentally multi-coating is the main reason we are able to use simple F stops with a high degree of accuracy rather than having to compensate for the number of elements in a lens. Modern zooms would be impossible, or at least impractical, without it.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of lens manufacture, but my physics degree covered the theory of coatings. As far as I can see they have to be the last thing you do to the lens element before it's assembled, since the thickness of the film is absolutely crucial to its effectiveness. If you applied the coating to a blank and then polished, the coating would end up thinner in some places than others.

Unfortunately I still don't think this answers the question, it seems to me that it will depend on

1. whether or not the Samsung/Pentax lenses actually roll of their own separate production lines

2. if it's the same line, how hard is it to switch coatings. It may actually be more expensive for Pentax to insist that Samsung use their own coatings than to simply do as Manesty suggested and prevent them from shouting about having SMC.

unless I was dreaming, Samsung have already announced re-branded versions of the DA* lenses. It would be a bit pointless the GX-10 having SDM capability otherwise. Admittedly I cannot currently find any reference to this announcement on Google, so perhaps I've been daydreaming again.

Surely the Samsung lenses MUST be coated in some way, even if it's just plain old fashioned multi-coating with a couple of layers.

The 50-200 is a 10 group lens, if it were uncoated then it would pass only ~66% of the light compared to 98% with SMC. The Samsung versions would be best part of a full stop slower at the same F-stop not to mention the level of flare and ghosting you'd get. Inept as reviewers often are SOMEONE would have noticed.

I agree that if these lenses were packing the best coating system in the world (with the exception of SMC Ghostless of course) then it would seem odd that Sammy don't shout from the rooftops about it

my experience of Samsung aftersales has always been poor, whereas my experience of Pentax aftersales has always been good.

I am willing to pay the extra for the after sales service. I do wish someone somewhere could confirm whether or not the Sammy lenses have SMC coatings though, because if there's a decent price difference and the coatings are good then I might be convinced to swallow my pride and buy a Samsung badged 50-135 F2. 8 (damn I want that lens!)

I think the official JPEG standard is 8 bits, so the problem with 16 bit JPEG is probably one of lack of a standard implimentation

/me begins singing and dancing around

Go Ben, Go Ben, Go.......

tiny bit late for that

as a general rule, less voltage than intended is unlikely to do any damage, it just might not work at all. If you think about it, if 1.2V could damage your camera then it would blow up the first time the Alkaline cells ran down a bit.

This is why 1.2V rechargeables are ok to use in devices designed for 1.5V alkaline cells.

I saw an SMC Tak 35mm F2 in M42 a while back. It was hiding in amongst some nasty cheapo lenses but alas someone else saw it too and I missed out by £1

Expect to pay a premium for these lenses IF you can find them.