now that's just plain... strange comment. what exactly would be the reason preventing the owners of the aforementioned truckloads of K/M lenses looking to buy into Digital (or DigitaL)?
mishka On 9/19/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While the lenses do exist, the number of owners looking to buy into > Digital or modern film are a fairly small fraction of the current > market. Barely worth supporting, and not worth the extra engineering > required to integrate the extra functionality into the design (Hardware > is always harder to integrate than firmware, hence the firmware fix). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >There is a big difference, millions > >of PK/M lenses are still out there with ONLY > >the cams on them, there is no need > >to not support those if the cost of > >support is very cheap in both the body > >and with respect to the value of the > >lenses and it certainly is....I am not arguing that new lenses > >should or shouldn't have mechanical > >interfaces, I am arguing that these > >particualar lenses should still be supported > >that happen to have simple mechanical interfaces. > >jco > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:57 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: more green button wars > > > > > >But by that standard, there is insufficient market for mechanical > >aperture sensing. Otherwise every major SLR manufacturer would not have > >abandoned it (Heck Canon and IIRC Minolta even abandoned mechanical > >aperture coupling as well). > > > >-Adam > > > > > > > >J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > > > > > >>Yes there is certainly insufficient market > >>for it because it isnt needed if the superior open aperture metering is > >>offered instead. That's a given. They don't offer what people don't > >>need. I am beginning to tire out over these arguments > >>because I posted an explaination why open apeture > >>metering is bettter but instead of you explaining > >>something wrong with my argument you just say > >>that its better ( Quality? ) without reason. > >> > >>>From what you are saying I gather you would > >>like or want stop down metering instead of open > >>aperture metering in all your cameras? WHY? > >>It's a serious question, not a rhetorical. > >>I ask because I don't believe there is any > >>reason to want it over open aperture metering > >>so Id like to know why in you would want stop down instead of open > >>aperture metering or why you thinks its "QUALITY" method based on the > >>post below... > >> > >>thanks, > >> > >>jco > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Larry Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:10 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: more green button wars > >> > >> > >>JCO opined: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Like I said if anyone here thinks stop > >>>down metering is better or as good as > >>>open aperture metering than I would like > >>>and explanation why NONE of the camera > >>>companies use it anymore or even offer it as > >>>an option in additon to open aperture metering? > >>>Because its isnt as good that's why. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>He really knows better than that. The reason companies no longer offer > >>stop > >>down metering is very simple. There is insufficient market for it. Relative > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>quality doesn't matter. > >> > >>Anyone here remember the Chrysler push-button automatic transmission? I > >>thought it was exponentially better than the typical gear shift lever. The > >>majority of the marketplace disagred with me and Chrysler. They went the > >> > >> > >way > > > > > >>of stop down aperture metering cameras. > >> > >>Larry in Dallas > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
