On 8 Oct 2003 at 21:14, graywolf wrote: > Over the years mechnical things have gotten more expensive, and > electronic things have gotten less expensive. We are talking a moving > target here not something set in concrete. You can not compare 1983 > manufacturing economics and 2003 manufacturing economics directly.
The discussion keeps slipping sideways. So if we rule out lenses which require mechanical aperture ring feedback and its associated stratospheric costs we are left with the potential for aperture ring operation with F/FA and LTD lenses. All of which provide aperture feedback via electronic signalling (?) So why was aperture ring operation disabled when it would likely have been simply be a matter of a software I/O routine? (I assume that information such as MTF etc. is still being read when using these lenses) The "expense to develop the software" argument is getting thinner too, how much time and effort was invested in the software multi-exposure function? Who is going to seriously use this function (which is found on virtually no other DSLRs) over an external image editor? Really a waste of time but an interesting spec to quote for a marketing guru or a gizmo freak. So I guess they had the opportunity but not the impetus to implement aperture ring control. Why is the question? 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
