Hi, it's your prerogative, of course. But consider a reply I had privately to this:
"Also, by the time you're done fiddling with the various function adjustments to get the camera to work automatically, you could have set everything manually and taken the picture." It might be instructive to compare the times taken by sufficiently competent photographers to use the different methods, and the ergonomics & human energy requirements of each one. Although several people have claimed that I've misunderstood the purpose of the marked aperture (and I've refuted those claims in other replies), nobody has yet provided any justification for the programmed version or shown why it is superior to having the optimum aperture marked on the lens. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, March 04, 2002, 7:44:16 AM, you wrote: > I personally dont think automating this (ie, replacing paint, fine brush > and human torque) is pointless. > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:51:21AM +0000, Bob Walkden wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've always thought of this as a classic example of pointless >> automation. On the older series of prime lenses the optimal aperture >> was marked in a different colour from the others. In conjunction with >> the depth-of-field scale on the lens this did everything that the MTF >> programme does, and all it requires is paint and a fine brush. A nice simple >> solution. >> >> --- >> >> Bob >> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
