----- Original Message -----
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
Here is YOUR STATEMENT that my reply
below was in resonse to:
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
WILLIAM ROBB WROTE:
The most important factor is lens usability for THE MAJORITY of users. For
most users, this means programmed exposure automation and autofocus,
neither of which are supported, or supportable, by K/M lenses.
William Robb
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
As everyone can see you are contending that for most users PROGRAMMED
EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability
factors, and at the same time you are saying full K/M support isnt
justified. But NO AE is possible at all with these crippled mount DSLRs
with
K/M lenses so how can you say PROGRAMMED AE is a most important
lens usablity factor and then at the same time argue that
NO AE AT ALL with K/M lenses without any compatabiliy issues isnt
important loss of lens-camera function? Is that simple enough for
you to see the GROSS contradiction??? And don't even think
about trying to argue that if you cant get PROGRAMMED AE
with a KM lens then there is no point in regular AE so it
can be tossed aside without any real loss of fucntion or "USABILITY"
because the K/M lenses were all designed
for open aperture metering and open aperture AE functions for a reason,
it's a good feature for some situations where you need or want it.
So, you are saying that I am saying:
PROGRAMMED
EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability
factors
and
full K/M support isnt
justified.
And somehow there is a contradiction?
K/M lenses do not support programmed exposure automation.
Period.
Where's the contradiction?
In what I am saying, not what you are saying I am saying, that is.....
Shit, this is fun now.
William Robb
