> > From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/08 Wed PM 01:08:40 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: which camera to buy? > > 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
Possibly not. We're paid to think. 8-)))) ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
