There should be three rings in that area - just like the good old OM cameras : shutter speed , focus and aperture. ;-)
--Tell that to every other camera system maker that has been making cameras and lenses "ever since".
Do you really think that larger/longer lens users want to deal with an aperture ring on the lens? I think the answer is pretty much a resounding "No", otherwise lens designers would be clamoring to put the aperture ring back on lenses! Clearly that hasn't happened, even two decades after Canon first took the aperture ring off the lens. Obviously, all the lenses from various manufacturers that have been introduced since then haven't been without aperture rings simply "to make it clear that theirs was a fully electronic mount." No, I think it has more to do with the fact that the aperture ring on the lens is an outdated anachronism that compromises camera handling.
And yet, on the brand new 12-50 lens Olympus made the decision to add not one, but two buttons to the place where the aperture ring used to be. Almost as if Olympus doesn't agree with you on the ergonomics issue.
I just wrote at mirrorlessrumors.com:
--
Debatable. The X-Pro1 sensor is not only larger though, it lacks AA filter, which could potentially make the difference massive.
With a 35 mm on the 4/3 and a 50 mm on the APS-C and a subject distance of 2 meters and f/2.8 aperture the 4/3 has a DOF of 27 cm and the APS-C has 18 cm, not insignificant.
An argument that is likely going to make yourself feel clever, but unlikely to convince anyone else.
Which is exactly what people like you said about the X100 a year ago. 100,000 X100 sales later its nice to see you making the same argument now.
100.000 is still an order of magnitude less of O&P's combined one million something, and growing ' which is exactly' my argument.
I don't think there are many people who still wish we were still using mechanical aperture rings! Certainly not at the expense of being able to do it electronically by other means. Secondly, there have been new high end mounts introduced since Canon came out with EOS, and they don't have aperture rings. Just take a look at the Leica S2. Or Hasselblad's H3D. Or the Mamiya/Phase One MF system. NONE of which have aperture rings. So what were you saying about "if anyone were starting a new high end mount now there would be an aperture ring"?
There's a bit of a difference between putting buttons on a particular lens, versus putting aperture rings on all of there lenses. You definitely don't see those buttons across their entire lens system.
--I don't think there are many people who still wish we were still using mechanical aperture rings! Certainly not at the expense of being able to do it electronically by other means. Secondly, there have been new high end mounts introduced since Canon came out with EOS, and they don't have aperture rings. Just take a look at the Leica S2. Or Hasselblad's H3D. Or the Mamiya/Phase One MF system. NONE of which have aperture rings. So what were you saying about "if anyone were starting a new high end mount now there would be an aperture ring"?
Plus, I think if "most people" really did regret not having aperture rings, the manufacturers would have heard about it by now, and they would be offering aperture rings on their lenses. Heck, if you look at the Phase One medium format lens below (third image below), there looks like there's a narrow aperture ring near the lens mount, but they've instead decided to use it as an AF/MF switch ring! LOL. I guess they did that just to tease you, Louis!
And on the lower end of the scale, we've had the new Olympus 4/3 mount, Olympus m4/3 mount, Sony NEX mount, and Nikon 1 mount, all of which don't have aperture rings either. Plus, with Pentax's medium format digital system, even though it's still compatible with its older 645 lenses, they chose not to give the newer AF lenses aperture rings either. So clearly, there have been plenty of opportunities for multiple manufacturers to go back to using aperture rings. And each time, they've opted not to do so.
You have to remember that the Fuji X-Pro1 is heavily driven by retro considerations, both aesthetic and functional. They really want you to feel like you're using an old-school camera from a bygone era. That's definitely part of its appeal. After all, how many camera designs basically said, "We need an old-school self-timer lever on the front of the camera, even though we'll make it serve a different function." Heck, I'm surprised they didn't also put a fake film advance lever on the camera, as well. Maybe we'll get that on the X-Pro2.
But 2.8 is irrelevant, if the μ43 can shoot at f/2. And there's no reason why it can't. The DOF difference would only matter is we were talking about apertures below f/1.4 because other μ43 can always go larger.
