> > From: "Lucas Rijnders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/08 Wed AM 11:18:56 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: which camera to buy? > > Op Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:47:05 +0100 schreef John Whittingham > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> > Why are lenses being designed without aperture rings anyway? > >> > Cost? > >> > >> Because they are not necessary. > > > > No it's cost cutting, they're necessary if you wish to use your new > > lenses on > > the MX, KX and numerous others. I won't buy a lens without an aperture > > ring....Period! > > You want to use a reduced image circle lenses on an MX? And: how many > people still use film camera's? The pricefall for second hand film bodies > is quite dramatic, which suggests not many... > > Apart from cost, doing away with the redundant aperture ring has serveral > other small advantages. A part that can wear and fail is eliminated.
But is replaced by a part (in-body aperture control) that, if _it_ fails, makes _all_ your lenses useless...... > Internal dust generation may be less. A point of ingress for moisture and > dust is eliminated. Lenses have a better grip for (dis-)mounting. Lenses > can be built more compact. The design is cleaner. Not big things, but > all-in-all I can understand the decision. > > -- > Regards, Lucas > > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
