On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:36:53AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Bill Robb wrote something that I snipped until this was left: > > > >> The Canon rep told me (sorry, not compelling evidence, just anecdotal) > >> that they felt accuracy and reliability would be improved by eliminating > >> moving parts, as much as possible, and that in the long run, it would be > >> cheaper for manufacture and, consequently, for the consumer to purchase. > > > >The accuracy comment makes sense. With an aperture ring you have detents for > >stops and half stops. Anything in between is a guess. Electronic aperture > >operation gives the photographer more precise control. > > Accuracy is certainly part of it. Almost all cameras are electronically > controlled now, but you have to convert the electronic information into > mechanical movement at some point. The closer this conversion is to the > final mechanism, the fewer mechanical linkages you'll have in between > and the better off you are.
The advantage of electronic systems is that if you put a postional encoder on the aperture mechanism (or the zoom, or the focus ring ...) you don't need a particularly precise actuator; just turn/push the control until the feedback from the encoder tells you that you are in the right place.
