I sympathise, but I'd have to admit my agreement is less than 100% If we're going to have aperture controlled by a ring on the lens, then what else? Exposure compensation by a control near the lens mount, or beneath the ISO dial? A shutter speed knob on the top of the camera, rather than a finger wheel? (At least I doubt if too many people would want the up/down buttons of the ME Super). Camera interfaces change. [I'd actually have liked an ISO dial on my *ist-D, but that's opening a whole different can of worms].
When I was using a PZ-1p I did occasionally use the aperture ring on my lenses (even the later FA ones; on the pre-A lenses I had no choice, of course). There are times when it was handy. And if it were available on the *ist-D or K10D I expect that I'd use it occasionally, too. But I can see the argument for simplifying the interface (and it's a lot more than just the cost of the mechanical linkage). On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 04:31:03PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I agree 100% with that statement..... ;-)) > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Digital Image Studio > > > Now wouldn't it be just dandy if the user had the choice to operate > > both ways? This is my point, not that one mode of operation is far > > superior that the other but that the exclusion of one mode of > > operation has eliminated a comfortable mode of operation for some of > > us when both modes could readily be accommodated. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
