On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, William Robb wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Brogden > Subject: Re[2]: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S > > > > I don't find myself becoming confused when I want to shut down > a window on > > my computer and have to choose between using Alt-F4, Ctrl-W, > or clicking > > the "X" in the corner. I stick with one preferred method, and > adapt as > > necessary. > > If you want to be honest about the computer comparison, then > consider that Alt-F4, or Ctrl-W are more like Pentax functions, > in that they are not obvious to the casual computer user. > This is not the same as having 2 user interfaces doing the same > task.
My analogy wasn't the best, but it's the aperture-selection technique that's like a Pentax function. I could understand how people might get confused if both aperture controls could be used at the same time, but they can't. If you have it set up to change apertures on the lens, you can't do it on the body. If you have it set up to change apertures on the body, you can't do it on the lens. You're in no danger of using one by mistake, as only one can be enabled at any time. Pick one you like and use it. > > Nonsense. Some people will find one method quicker while > others may find > > it impossible to use. Being able to switch a camera body over > to MF is > > great, but there are times when I really love lenses with a > clutch focus > > that let me adjust the focus manually even when the body is > set to AF. > > Two different ways of selecting MF; both have their places. > Similarly, > > how many of us complain about having both exposure > compensation and an ISO > > override, since they both do essentially the same thing? > > While they do exactly the same thing, it makes sense to make them > discreet functions, as people treat them as different things. Exposure > comp is warned about in the viewfinder, but ISO overide isn't. So why not remove ISO override and just have exposure comp, like Nikon did in their F55? Because some people don't want to see that information in the viewfinder all the time. Ok, why not remove exp. comp and just have ISO override? Because some people want to see the info in the viewfinder. Also, some find one easier to do in some situations but not in others. End result: Pentax offers both, giving the users a choice. It may be redundant, but it lets users choose which method and interface they prefer. Besides, the aperture selection techniques *are* discrete functions. You can only use one at a time. When one is selected, the other is disabled. > > I think it's a common misconception that the presence of more > options > > means that something will take longer to use. Some cameras, > for example, > > offer the ability to turn a button on the rear panel into an > AF button: > > pressing on it will autofocus the camera without the danger of > > accidentally firing a shot, so you don't have to worry about > pressing down > > more than halfway on the shutter button by mistake. It's an > extra control > > that duplicates an existing one, but some people like having > the option of > > using it. If you don't like it, don't use it. > > If it doesn't need to be there, why put it there? There are only > 3 control functions on a camera. Why you want to have multiple > control methods of operating them is beyond what my simple mind > can fathom. Because some users want one method and other want the other. Think of how many people would be pissed off if Pentax abandoned aperture-ring functionality on their upper-end bodies (think MZ-50, 30, 60). And yet there are several lenses that are too thick to allow the aperture to be changed on the lens easily, so it makes sense to offer the option to change it via the body. > > As for the reliability issue, I can't see how adding a > redundant feature > > that people can use as a backup if their main control fails > would > > *decrease* the reliability of the product. Sorry, Bill, but > that doesn't > > make sense. Look at how many people love cameras like the LX, > that allow > > you the option of mechanically-controlled shutter speeds if > the electronic > > ones fail. Pentax didn't need to do that. It was a redundant > back-up > > feature that I'm sure came in handy for some people. Even > Nikon has a > > manual-wind option on their F5 in case the built-in drive > fails. Having > > backups is good, IMO, and increases the reliability of a > device. > > Can it be used as a backup? If the lens mechanism fails, you > aren't going to be using that lens for a while, no matter what > nifty geegaws they put on the camera body. Depends on the mechanism. If you mess up one of the "A" contacts(?), the lens itself will still stop down and you might be able to use the aperture ring. Either way, it's not just about having a backup, but about having a choice of interfaces for those who prefer one over the other. > If the circuitry or mechanics of the control wheel fails, the > entire camera may fail, depending on how interdependent the > camera is on having all it's circuitry working. > The dual shutter control on the LX is not an extra set of > controls on the camera, but a built in redundancy that is > completely transparent, and user interface non dependant. > This is true redundancy, and is a good thing. > What you are trying to talk around as being a redundancy is > actually a complication of the user interface, and is not a good > thing from a design, or user POV. > Extra controls can get knocked during use, and may inadvertently > change camera settings. They can also affect the integrity of > the equipment by allowing another place for dirt or moisture to > enter the camera body. I agree, but in this case there are no extra controls. The control dial has to be there to select all the other things that it selects, and I doubt that the circuits feeding it aperture information will compromise the structural integrity of the camera. chris
