Good usability is when a company has the solvency to get a product onto the store shelves. Bad usability is having no product, and no company, as a result of clinging to old manufacturing inefficiencies in order to placate a noisy but financially unrewarding minority of potential customers.
Give Pentax some credit for knowing how to make cameras that, in most cases, sell well. They don't make the camera I most want, either, but then nobody else does because I'm a dinosaur in the age of automation. It's ironic that I think using a camera manually means having only focus, aperture and shutter speed to manipulate. Others would say that manual mode includes a meter, while yet others want the film wound and the focus accomplished by the camera but still call it 'manual' mode because they would bypass the AE mode of the meter. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anthony Farr" > Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in > "American Photo" magazine) > > > > At it again, eh Peter. > > > > A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be > > able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture. How does that lack > > "usability"? > > Good useability is when the manufacture tries to make it easier to use a > product combination. Bad usability is when they make it usable at the lowest > level possible. > I expect Peter assumed that when he used the term "usability", the reader > would presume good, not bad as being desirable. > > William Robb > >
