True. But, the only thing that ever (12 years) had a failure, not caused by me, on my PZ-1 was actually the electronic aperture control (A-setting). This was the reason all my photographs taken on one day in Santorini (most photographed place in Greece) came out very badly exposed (unusable) in 1998.
The Apeture is stoped down mechanically anyway. Only the control is manual or electronical. The Aperture blades as well as a lever in the camera and in the lens are still there. I don't really believe that exlusivly electrnical aperure control makes much of a difference, when it comes to reliablity or accuracy. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. september 2005 00:48 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Temporarily enabled with 2.8/70-200mm More apparent control. You reach a point where the difference is relatively meaningless not too far beyond 1/2 stops. Tom Reese wrote: >Bill Robb wrote something that I snipped until this was left: > > > >>The Canon rep told me (sorry, not compelling evidence, just anecdotal) >> >> >that > > >>they felt accuracy and reliability would be improved by eliminating moving >>parts, as much as possible, and that in the long run, it would be cheaper >>for manufacture and, consequently, for the consumer to purchase. >> >> > >The accuracy comment makes sense. With an aperture ring you have detents for >stops and half stops. Anything in between is a guess. Electronic aperture >operation gives the photographer more precise control. > >Tom Reese > > > > -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
