Mark Roberts wrote:
Well that might be true, but as more features get added to the camera the cost begins to rise. Someonefrank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:13:30 +0000, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27/1/05, Derby Chang, discombobulated, unleashed:
Oh, just thought of one more. Aperture rings let you set hyperfocus
distance (not that I do it that much)
Well, not having any lenses without an aperture ring, I never considered the hyper-focus issue.
That's a huge issue with me - I use it all the time, especially on the
street! One of my zooms (the Viv S1 f3.8 24-48mm, to be exact) has no
dof scale next to the ring.
Well that makes an interesting point, doesn't it: Having an aperture ring is no guarantee of having the necessary DOF markings. In fact, *not* having an aperture ring is no reason why a lens couldn't have these markings. All you need are the markings around the focusing mark, not the aperture ring itself.
In fact, with a DSLR, they should be able to show DOF on the rear panel LCD (with appropriate firmware), using the aperture and focus distance information transmitted from the lens (and this would be particularly useful with zooms). Minolta did this with a FILM camera fer cryin' out loud! ;-)
pointed this out about the low cost of the aperture simulator. They didn't want to pay for something they
saw as unnecessary. The question is how much extra are you willing to pay for this information, and when
would it be displayed. If it's marked on the lens it's displayed all the time.
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
