[normhead]

What you choose to believe is really none of my concern, knock yourself out. If you want to think all those possibilities are equal, then, that doesn't matter to me either., or if you think the moon landing was faked or if you have theories on what happens in the Bermuda triangle.

But given that we have pictures of the finished product and a store manager has held it in his hand, an awful lot of those are eliminated. When something new comes out, it's an update to what came out before. You shouldn't be trotting out rumours that may no longer apply.

[Rondec]

I guess on the earlier topic, I prefer to control aperture from camera body. Easier, quicker and have instant feedback in the viewfinder of any changes.

As to progress of the camera, I am still expecting it in the spring. Should be fine. Winter time isn't the best time to take photos anyway.

[Glorfindelrb]

We are several to wait for it now to invest again. If They keep delaying, they will keep getting catastrophic sales numbers. That 's there only next move possible now and Ricoh did put itself in this position.

[Class A]

Or suggesties what it might be.

• It's the prism that isn't good.

How can you claim to not have a negative attitude when you are selectively pulling a point about the prism being worked on from a post that specifically mentions that the camera has been "tested" for a few minutes?

We did not only hear through the post in question that the camera is in a testable state but also from a very trustworthy member that his friend took the camera for a spin. Yet, your take away message is the the prism "isn't good".

You are using a new post that adds no information to revive your theory that Ricoh went back to studying the market, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. How is that not being negative?

[monochrome]

I presume he was simply not allowed to turn it on.

thread winner operative language.

[Jean Poitiers]

Even odder: on the other thread, the initial version of timautin's post was:


timautin edited his message one day after writing it and it now says:


Apparently, timautin was kindly requested to censor that (i) the shop's manager (Richard Studient, I presume) tested for a few minutes the prototype exhibited at the Salon de la Photo (and yet this prototype is currently touring France to be shown to French retailers and central purchasing entities...), (ii) the sensor is procured from Sony and (iii) the alleged reason for the delay.

I now need to go to my Poitiers B&M and ask a few pointed questions ...

[RonHendriks1966]

How can you claim to not have a negative attitude when you are selectively pulling a point about the prism being worked on from a post that specifically mentions that the camera has been "tested" for a few minutes?

We did not only hear through the post in question that the camera is in a testable state but also from a very trustworthy member that his friend took the camera for a spin. Yet, your take away message is the the prism "isn't good".

You are using a new post that adds no information to revive your theory that Ricoh went back to studying the market, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. How is that not being negative?

The prism was already mentioned in another thread. There was a mentioned that it wasn't good in design, or not covering 100%. I think that was one of the first things mentioned as reason for delay.

It's now only three months before cp+. So just wait and see.

[drougge]

I guess on the earlier topic, I prefer to control aperture from camera body. Easier, quicker and have instant feedback in the viewfinder of any changes.

I know I shouldn't, but I just have to answer this:

One of the reasons I (we) want an aperture feeler is so the selected aperture can be displayed in the viewfinder (when set from the aperture ring).

Anyone who wants to claim that this wouldn't be possible should also explain what has changed since the MZ-S, where it is possible and works fine. (It only works with F and newer lenses though. I have never understood why it doesn't work with A lenses.)

[Rondec]

I know I shouldn't, but I just have to answer this:

One of the reasons I (we) want an aperture feeler is so the selected aperture can be displayed in the viewfinder (when set from the aperture ring).

Anyone who wants to claim that this wouldn't be possible should also explain what has changed since the MZ-S, where it is possible and works fine. (It only works with F and newer lenses though. I have never understood why it doesn't work with A lenses.)

I think you miss my point. I have always found aperture rings clumsy affairs that are slow to use and require me removing my camera from my eye in order to use them correctly. Some folks act as though the ultimate experience would be using an FA limited "the way it was intended," with the aperture ring. My preference is to use all lenses, where they are capable, in A mode and not mess with the aperture ring at all.

I understand completely why people want the aperture feeler for really old lenses. I'm just not sure it is high on Pentax's priority list of things to add to full frame.

[drougge]

I think you miss my point. I have always found aperture rings clumsy affairs that are slow to use and require me removing my camera from my eye in order to use them correctly. Some folks act as though the ultimate experience would be using an FA limited "the way it was intended," with the aperture ring. My preference is to use all lenses, where they are capable, in A mode and not mess with the aperture ring at all.

I understand completely why people want the aperture feeler for really old lenses. I'm just not sure it is high on Pentax's priority list of things to add to full frame.

It's not so much that I miss your point, but that your preference is yours and not something I need to comment on. Of course some people prefer to use controls on the camera, nothing wrong with that. And not really worth commenting on. ("You like that, but I like this, let's fight!" is rather useless.)

But the way you wrote it implies that you think using the aperture ring means not seeing the selected aperture in the finder, or at the very least others may well read your text that way. I don't want people to think that this incorrect inconvenience is how it would have to be.

So let me be super clear: "instant feedback in the viewfinder of any changes" (your words) is something I want when using the aperture ring. And at all other times too of course. And I don't want anyone to think that it wouldn't be possible.

[thibs]

I know I shouldn't, but I just have to answer this:

One of the reasons I (we) want an aperture feeler is so the selected aperture can be displayed in the viewfinder (when set from the aperture ring).

Anyone who wants to claim that this wouldn't be possible should also explain what has changed since the MZ-S, where it is possible and works fine. (It only works with F and newer lenses though. I have never understood why it doesn't work with A lenses.)

Works on Z1/Z1p too and it works thanks to digital pin, absent from A lenses.

[wkraus]

I think most here when pressed for a rational answer would say it's one of the first three and not the 4th or 5th.

Maybe some people, even when pressed for a rational answer they would still insist on 4th or 5th...

I'm afraid no one can be pressed for rationality unless it's already there.

[normhead]

I'm afraid no one can be pressed for rationality unless it's already there.

So true, and if it's not there, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Well, if you're talking to someone who's over 26 years old.

[IchabodCrane]

It's not so much that I miss your point, but that your preference is yours and not something I need to comment on. Of course some people prefer to use controls on the camera, nothing wrong with that. And not really worth commenting on. ("You like that, but I like this, let's fight!" is rather useless.)

But the way you wrote it implies that you think using the aperture ring means not seeing the selected aperture in the finder, or at the very least others may well read your text that way. I don't want people to think that this incorrect inconvenience is how it would have to be.

So let me be super clear: "instant feedback in the viewfinder of any changes" (your words) is something I want when using the aperture ring. And at all other times too of course. And I don't want anyone to think that it wouldn't be possible.

I'm confused. Are you saying it's more important to be able to see the aperture setting in the OVF or is it more important to be able to set the aperture on the lens instead of the camera?

[drougge]

I'm confused. Are you saying it's more important to be able to see the aperture setting in the OVF or is it more important to be able to set the aperture on the lens instead of the camera?

I am saying that you can have both. The important and in fact only point is that setting the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens can still show the selected aperture in the OVF (and EXIF).

---------- Post added 2015-11-24 at 17:50 ----------

Works on Z1/Z1p too and it works thanks to digital pin, absent from A lenses.

That's an implementation detail. What I never understood is why they choose not to support it on A lenses, since all the information required is in fact available from A lenses too (just in a different format).

(Yes, I know, the 50/1.2 doesn't provide that information. That's no reason to not support it on any A lens.)