I don't know for sure but I would bet that it was done to control costs. If they can make software process the information with fewer segments they will in the long run save money. It's a trend you can see in almost every computerized device. If you can do that and give better results...
At 09:16 PM 8/20/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Just out of interest, why did Pentax switch from an eight-segment >multi-pattern metering system (PZ-1p) to a six-segment system >(MZ-S)? Does anyone have any insight? I'm not implying that the MZ-S >meter is worse - I don't believe in sheer numbers (the nine segment >Minolta meters seem to test consistently better than the EOSIVs); I just >wonder why they'd take an APPARENT step back. Was there any problem with >the PZ-1p's system? Or was the six-segment an economy (because of sharing >with other ZX cameras)? I've had excellent results from the 1p >multi-pattern metering and scrunched my nose a little to see it gone in >the MZ-S (which, as I said before, may be just as good or better). > >Robert Soames Wetmore >_____________________ > >"I am not interested in constructing a building so much as in having a >perspicuous view of the foundations of possible buildings" >Wittgenstein > > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx >- >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 . - 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 .
