Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc6.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix654 From: ix654@sdcc6.UUCP (ix654) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Aperture vs. shutter priority Message-ID: <1917@sdcc6.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 15:50:01 EST Article-I.D.: sdcc6.1917 Posted: Thu Feb 14 15:50:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 05:43:52 EST Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Lines: 28 There is no question that from functional point of view aperture priority is no better or worse than shutter priority - they are simply needed in different situations. However, I think that there is a considerable difference as far as mechanical complexity is concerned. To get shutter priority you need to pack several devices into your camera, which are not necessary for aperture priority (something that would sense the lens opening just before exposure - usually a wheel with holes that generates impulses counted by the controlling processor; you should also have a way to tell what f/stop is selected by the camera, which means either a window in the prism housing or a more complicated display in the viewfinder etc. etc.) It would probably bother me to know that there are such complex & fragile parts in my camera - I'm not saying that they can't be made to work reliably, but to me it's simply several more things that can jam, break or malfunction in some other way. I suspect that this is precisely the reason why the cameras used by most professionals (Nikon F3, Pentax LX, Canon F1) have only aperture priority. I've been using a Pentax ME Super for the past 6 years and I have never encountered a situation in which my reaction would be "I wish I had shutter priority". It would be useful to have it, but I can easily do without it in 99 out of 100 cases (I should add that I almost never shoot sports action - it would definitely help then). E.J. Behr, UCSD (sdcc6!ix654)