Shel wrote:
> 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.
The only thing thats leaked out about the "new LX" is that it won't have
interchangeable viewfinders. Of course, Pentax could have changed the design from the
early days of developemnt.
>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.
I can't see anything wrong in having matrix and spotmetering and the needed fine
readout of exposure values. Regardless of the LX qualities its meters precision leaves
me almost blind compared to modern metering. As you can read in several photo books,
the usual question among pros shooting side by side is "what exposure did you get"? So
much for solving low tech problems. Being able to nail exposure accurately is one of
the crucial points in a fine camera in this day and age.
> 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.
Even the MZ-S has a cleaner and less busy viewfinder than the LX; it do without 17
LED's.
P�l
-
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 .
