I wasnt insulting Pentax, I was insulting you I guess. You were the one who said that it's better match bodies w exposure compensation one than a "buried in a menu" metering sensivity adjustment, not Pentax. I strongly disagreed with that comment, thats for sure.... jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Need Advice: value of an *istD outfit
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Need Advice: value of an *istD outfit >I SURE DO. > > You would have to be an idiot to think otherwise. > Why in the world would you want to have to remember > or ignore exposure compensation settings for each > camera when you could match them once and for > all and have them behave identically without > any exposure compensation. thats much better > from a user standpoint and when you REALLY want > or need exposure compensation it would be dialed > in as normal, not added or subtracted from some > base setting off zero that is already there for > body to body matching. Well, rather than insult the user base of the products, why don't you suggest it as a firmware update to Pentax. Hint: You'll have better success if you don't call them idiots. It's not a bad idea, it is one more thing to remember you've done though. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
