Sorry, I meant for shutter priority modes.
Continuous variable aperture has always been possible. It's especially easy to do with a Spot F with an analog needle meter. I've used it many times when shooting evenly lit scenes, turn the aperture ring until the needle is centered. It hardly ever happens on a particular f-stop detent.
Actually I use hyper manual on my PZ most of the time, but when there is fast action, I don't have time to fiddle with it, so the automation comes in handy.
You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed.
This seems less than possible if you let the camera set both shutter and aperture for you, Which is the only way this is really possible. Why spend all this money on an SLR. If your going to let the exposure system do all your thinking for you
get a P&S. You don't need computerized control to compensate for variable aperture zooms by the way, purely analog metering systems have been doing it quite well for a very long time.Its a guestimate based on wide open reading, which is not too bad actually. One based on the electronic data is better. Of course it's one more thing that can break. :(
Sometimes simple is better.
Yea, I never liked the whole imaginary number games used to solve electrical engineering problems. Like I mentioned though, I use Hyper-manual most of the time, so I like having the control. I do like the concept of doing away with fixed buckets. Its useful as a reference to get a grasp of the general lighting conditions, but that's all.
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".
You seem to like having a robot make your decisions for you. I'm not afraid of real numbers but imaginary numbers give me hives.
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,
There is a kernel of truth here it would be more expensive, probably $20.00 per unit. That would make each *ist-D
cost 1% more if they passed the whole cost on to the consumer. If they didn't they could make up for that cost by selling
100 to 1000 more units world wide, depending on their current gross profit per unit. I think with a world wide population of several billion people Pentax might find that many more to buy an *ist-D if they kept faith with their past.
I honestly think for the *istD it would have cost a whole lot more money than that. Mainly because of software and testing. We go through this with software all the time. "Should we support the xxx version of the operating system for customers who are still on it?" Adding the support sometimes takes your testing matrix beyond the resources available and do not make sense *at that time*. It may be the case that they have postponed this to the next body.
Yup. But we are less than the critical mass needed to make it happen.
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.
Most of us who have been complaining have already said we would be willing to pay more for this compatibility in a high end unit.
Huh? Where? My apologies if I offended anyone.
:)
Your smilie doesn't stop your post from having a distinctly condescending tone. Sadly you set up several straw men to knock down and failed to do even that.
