Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Not ordinary please.
Oops. By ordinary, I meant to say of conventional design, not of
plebeian quality.
> One of the nice things about both the Epson and The Leica was their
> simplicity. Back to basics. For instance -
> exposure compensation on the M8? Check the auto reading and then select a
> different non-auto shutter speed or aperture.
Back to basics, yes. Simple? to me less so than a direct compensation
function.
> There may have been a cuter way but that worked really well.
Not cuter, but I prefer pushing a button and adjusting compensation
directly in EV steps.
> The Auto setting worked well as a meter. Both of them felt like proper
> cameras - four variables - S, A, WB and
> ISO.
Whoa, hold on there. WB is a "purer" control than exposure comp.? I
thought "proper" cameras adjusted ISO by changing rolls and WB with that
and/or filters.
> No scene modes, teeth finder or owt.
I don't use any of that stuff. Is just having it there enough to rule
out a camera that otherwise meets my need very well?
> No 'would you prefer 1/3rd or 1/2 stop increments?' That's all a bit ordinary.
>
How can you waste the attention to even think about that stuff?
> Just add AF. Leave the RF patch and allow MF tweaking plus focus lock -
> that'd be more historically sound I suppose.
>
AF, WB adjust, ISO adjust, none of it's historically sound mate. Me,
I'll just skip the RF patch. No point paying the price in money, size
and weight of something I won't use. I'd rather use them for a twist and
tilt LCD. ;-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|