Paal Jensen wrote: "All Pentax needs to do is to make a camera thats obviously is inspired by the original LX in design and looks and that fill a similar role in the line-up." We ~know~ that Pentax can do this, or else there would be no 6711 or 645n. Who's complaining about features on those cameras? BTW I read an interview with the designer of the 645n, in which he said that the matrix metering had been calibrated to give similar results to the centre-weighted metering of the 645, unlike the 35mm cameras, where this was not taken into account. The reason for this was given as the users of 645 and 645n already understood exposure compensation and when to use it, whereas 35mm users wanted the camera to make the necessary adjustments automatically. Sounds very sensible to me, as the success rate of my uncompensated MZ5n is very high, and if I want to have full control for some reason I can easily choose spot or CW metering and use compensation. Truly the best of all worlds and far better than the ME super with CW only (how much bias is given to the central area?, how big is the central area? I don't know!) Regards Jim Brooks ######################################################################## E-MAILS are susceptible to interference. You should not assume that the contents originated from the sender or the Zetex Group or that they have been accurately reproduced from their original form. Zetex accepts no responsibility for information, errors or omissions in this e-mail nor for its use or misuse nor for any act committed or omitted in connection with this communication. If in doubt, please verify the authenticity with the sender. Visit our new look website at http://www.zetex.com Bigger and better with improved functionality ######################################################################## - 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 .
