On 14 Nov 2004 at 21:36, John Francis wrote: > It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; > some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences.
I don't think so, the software development cost argument is a tenuous one. If I had the choice to forsake one function for faster/smaller RAW files I'm sure I could live without in-camera multiple exposures. How much cost do you think went into developing that baby, I would guess there is a whole lot more code and cost in there (especially considering is the first ever (and probably last) implementation in a DSLR). And I'm betting a whole lot more people shoot RAW than use the multiple exposure function on a regular basis? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
