Hi, >> It might be instructive to compare the times taken by sufficiently >> competent photographers to use the different methods, and the >> ergonomics & human energy requirements of each one.
> Thats an implementation issue. Is the *idea* by itself bad ? Implementation is everything in this case. It's a perfectly good idea to know which is the lens's best aperture from the mtf point-of-view. How you implement that idea is vitally important though because it determines whether or not the photographer uses the feature, and if so uses it effectively and efficiently. Automation should make photographers' lives easier without reducing their ability to get good photographs. A badly implemented good idea is a bad idea. An unused feature is a waste of the manufacturer's development resources, the photographer's money and the capacity of the camera which could have been used for something more usable. It's particularly shameful if the unused feature is a badly implemented good idea. > If > setting the aperture manually is better, then why have program mode at > all ? just AP would do. That's a somewhat different argument and it's perhaps best not to go there just at the moment. > Superior: I can mark optimum aperture on barrel and do it both ways as i > want. If the chip inside doesnt have the support, i can only do it > manually. I've noted in another reply that I am coming to understand the conditions in which it works well on the Z1-P. I can therefore agree that having it both ways would be a good idea, ie also have the lens marked. However, on the modern lenses it's not marked, so you don't have it both ways. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, March 04, 2002, 9:04:24 PM, you wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:25:07PM +0000, Bob Walkden wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it's your prerogative, of course. But consider a reply I had privately >> to this: >> >> "Also, by the time you're done fiddling with the various function >> adjustments to get the camera to work automatically, you could have set >> everything manually and taken the picture." > If i have understood the purpose of this function, it will try to set > aperture to best one in program mode if possible, else pick some other > more appropriate value. So its a matter of setting it only once right ? > This is merely adding some "intelligence" to the program mode. If > setting the aperture manually is better, then why have program mode at > all ? just AP would do. >> >> It might be instructive to compare the times taken by sufficiently >> competent photographers to use the different methods, and the >> ergonomics & human energy requirements of each one. > Thats an implementation issue. Is the *idea* by itself bad ? >> >> Although several people have claimed that I've misunderstood the >> purpose of the marked aperture (and I've refuted those claims in other >> replies), nobody has yet provided any justification for the programmed >> version or shown why it is superior to having the optimum aperture >> marked on the lens. >> > Justification: Its useful. > Superior: I can mark optimum aperture on barrel and do it both ways as i > want. If the chip inside doesnt have the support, i can only do it > manually. - 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 .
