> > From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/08 Wed PM 12:31:36 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: which camera to buy? > > On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:20:46 -0000, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> From: "Lucas Rijnders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2006/03/08 Wed AM 11:52:04 GMT > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Re: which camera to buy? > >> > >> Op Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:33:07 +0100 schreef mike wilson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> >> Apart from cost, doing away with the redundant aperture ring has > >> >> serveral > >> >> other small advantages. A part that can wear and fail is eliminated. > >> > > >> > But is replaced by a part (in-body aperture control) that, if _it_ > >> > fails, makes _all_ your lenses useless...... > >> > >> <grin> Even worse, on a DS or DL failure of the command wheel makes the > >> camera pretty useless :o) > > > > I wasn't going to go there. I think my point is made. 8-) > > Failure of the shutter mechanism, or the rewind mechanism, make any film > camera useless. So what? This is a pointless point. Every mechanical > contrivance has critical parts that may fail. >
Indeed. But my Z1-p has the redundancy of two methods of aperture selection. All the design work has been done for this to be carried over into consecutive models. The only believable reason for not doing so is to cut costs. That might be a valid business reason; it's not a valid photographic one. m ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
