On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:48:50 -0000, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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.
Mike, only somebody whose salary is paid by tax-payers could make such a
point. EVERYTHING photographic has to make business sense, or it won't
see the light of day. In the real world, people and things have to
justify their existence.
Is is just coincidence that the three UK-based people on this list who
want Pentax to sell economically unviable products and to continue to
support 30 year-old technology ad infinitum are connected with British
universities?
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
