Shel,
Why does it bother you what someone else wants on a camera? It's not like anyone is
going to come to your house and modify your cameras. Those of us who do not fear
anything made in the last twenty years seem to think it's okay for you shoot with
whatever you like; who gave you the right to tell us what we can use?
You're a pretty good photographer and an intelligent guy, but good grief, lay off with
the Camera Police act.
Doug
At 7:37 PM -07007/30/01, Shel Belinkoff wrote, or at least typed:
>Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
>
>> I'm with the guy (I forget who) that suggested
>> that Pentax should update the LX by adding AF
>> drive shafts and gears that mate with new AF
>> winders and motors.
>
>Yeah - Pentax can call it the "Rube Goldberg" model. If you don't
>know who Rube Goldberg is, this is a sample of his creativity:
>
>http://www.rube-goldberg.com/html/pencil_sharpener.htm
>
>> Other modifications I would like to see to the LX are:
>>
>> 1) additional metering in the finder to provide
>> matrix and spot metering as well as memory lock
>> over and above the current OTF system. This would
>> fill a gap in the LX's spec and also make metering
>> for manual operation more accurate. (Note that the
>> central portion of the mirror that that currently
>> passes light to the SPD light sensor could now be
>> used to pass light to the focus detector). A nice
>> touch would be to add an integral viewfinder blind
>> (like on the K2DMD) which would be now be necessary.
>
>More nonsense. Needing a viewfinder blind defeats one of the nicest
>features about the LX, and, from the way you describe this atrocity
>committed upon an LX, the interchangeable finders would have to go or
>be modified substantially. Matrix metering is not needed - why can't
>you techno-weenies learn to use a meter properly instead of relying on
>high-tech solutions to solve low tech problems. Further, all this
>crap will contribute to shutter lag, making the LX less responsive,
>and further diluting its character and abilities.
>
>> 2) programmed and shutter priority modes with
>> aperture and shutter speed displays in the
>> viewfinder (the direct aperture readout should
>> stay for use with older lenses).
>
>Cool - let's clutter up a reasonably well done viewfinder with more
>blinking lights, bells and whistles. Why do you feel that a
>viewfinder must be loaded with all sorts of readouts and information.
>It's a camera, fer gawds sake, not a rocket ship.
>>
>> I'm amazed that the Pentax people can't
>> see the logic and simplicity of this idea.
>
>I'm amazed that you can't see the logic and simplicity of the LX just
>as it is. To take such an elegant camera and add geegaws, bulk,
>remove or modify well designed features, and slow down its operation
>while adding complexity defeats the intent of the LX and lessens the
>pure pleasure one gets from using it.
>
>--
>Shel Belinkoff
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me
>when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do?"
--
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
