Bob Shell wrote: > On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Cotty wrote: > > >> S is available on some Canon lenses, and others (by another >> name) ;-) >> >> Funny, I can remember a time when just about every listmember here >> poo- >> pooed image stabilisation, decrying it as an unnecessary gimmick. >> Now it >> seems that if you're not into shake reduction, you're nowhere. >> >> Funny how things change! >> > > Ain't that the truth! > > I'm old enough to remember when in-camera meters were decried as an > unnecessary gimmick. No "real" photographer would use such a namby- > pamby, sissy thing. Why, the idea was just plain silly. > > Years later the same comments were heard about autofocus. Who needs > it? I can focus better/faster myself! No "real" photographer would > use such a silly-ass idea. > > This seems to be a regular cycle with any new technology in > photography. The fact to a certain piece of useful technology was once described as a gimmick does not automatically imply that another described as a gimmick is also useful, though.
There have also been various inventions in the camera industry that people described as gimmicks because they actually were. One obvious example had a name beginning with a P... - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
