Where have I RELUCTANTLY acknowledged that electronic aperture is superior ??
Your english comprehension or the care with which you have read is most definitely "off". Try reading my posts again, a courtesy you clearly afforded on neither your first post quoting me, nor your subsequent post - PLEASE don't "skim read" this time. What might help is if you try to quote any area where my acknowledgement of electronic aperture being superior is "reluctant", prior to your initial post quoting me (when I chose to point out some of your erroneous assertions such as the "requirement" to take your eye from the viewfinder with a mechanical aperture - an incorrect statement of yours you have just reasserted, clearly "skim reading" again, without understanding what ADR means; it was what I asked you to look up in the previous post and what would clearly show you you are wrong to make an unqualified assertion that you have to take your eye from the viewfinder with a mechanical aperture ring). I promise you will be unable to do so.
However to simplify it for you, I will quote myself here:
"In fact, from a user perspective, it would be better to use a front/rear dial in an AF camera such as the fuji X-100 (which would then open the possibility of one-handed use)."
I then argued against the OP who stated that an aperture ring around the lens is a clear case of "form following function":
"From an engineering perspective on the Fuji x-100 it makes no difference whatsoever where the "aperture selector" is placed as it is still an electronic motor which moves the diaphram, not the selector itself ... actually, I take that back, it kind of does matter ... it would be MORE EXPENSIVE for Fuji to adopt the click-stop aperture ring around the lens rather than to use one of the pre-existing dials."
ie. I am saying aperture around the ring is more expensive than electronic thumbwheel which = not good.
Then in response to Spyro stating that having apertures controlled electronically through a thumbwheel would make the lens AF, bigger, have greater battery draw and be constructed of cheap plastic, I argued that that was not the case (meaning I argued FOR electronic aperture adjustment on the camera):
Not necessarily - electronic contacts sure, but there is no correlation between focus method and method of aperture adjustment, the motor used to adjust aperture electronically is so tiny and has such a small battery draw as to be virtually non-existent, and there is also no correlation to quality/materials used in construction: think Zeiss ZE lenses or the Voightlander lenses for Canon.
I'm not getting huffy over the topic itself (which would be silly), I am getting huffy at being misquoted and having the opposite of my position being attributed to me, by someone who has read with neither care nor comprehension. Having words put in your mouth or to be ascribed a viewpoint to which you don't subscribe is reason enough for a firm response.
Here ...
http://www.pascalpress.com.au/ABC-Reading-Eggs-My-First-Comprehension-p/9781742151656.htm
LOL - now I actually DO feel better. Thanks for the help !!
😀
