J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap <$300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement. With the A lenses, continously variable aperture adjustment became possible. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. With both ends open, as in "green" mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying "I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers".
I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their R&D costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead.
:)
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 7 Oct 2003 at 17:49, Robert Gonzalez wrote:
A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture control is a much more desirable form of adjustment.
Desirable to whom?
Everyone but a few whiners it seems.
A great retort indeed, indicating that the author has a deep understanding
of
the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-(
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
