--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:28:12PM -0700, Brendan > MacRae wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for setting me straight, Godfrey. Good > lord, I > > had no idea the DSLR's operated that way. Now I'm > just > > pissed off. Do the *ist series film cameras > operate > > that way as well? Where the hell have I been? > > > > You see, I knew there was a reason to come back > into > > the fold. All of a sudden I feel so old fashioned. > > Never mind - you can just go and stand in that group > over there; you're by no means the only person who > wants > the aperture control to be done by the lens-mounted > ring, > just as god intended. > Of course you won't be allowed into the group who > also feel > that shutter controls belong on a ring round the > lens, too. > Or the group for whom anything more sophisticated > than > taking the lens cap off to control exposure is > anathema. lol! It's definitely a frustration. I wish that the engineers would think more in terms of making the new technology as similar to the old as possible. I feel for them, on the one hand, in that there are a plethora of considerations that they must take into account when designing something new (things I would never even consider not being an engineer). However, losing something as tactile and familiar as adjusting the lens aperture on the lens seems next to crazy, IMHO. Especially from the company that gave us the perfectly retro Zx-5n, camera lauded by users and designers alike for its traditional control laytout in a autofocus body. Still, I always hated that the Zx-5n was made of plastic, which is another reason I switched to the MZ-S. Maybe I'm just way too hard to please. -Brendan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
