On 27 Apr 2005 at 11:47, Ken Durling wrote:
> With all due respect I fail to see what focal length has to do with
> "amateurishness." And why are long teles "Silly?" In the field,
> 400mm really isn't very long at all.
>
> I do agree there needs to be more wide angle coverage, but let's
> accept each camera for its design point.
Sorry, I cannot accept 1001 compacts with ever-more silly tele-
settings, while no decent wide-angle exists _at all_, not even from
the most prestigious manufacturers. While even DSLR-aftermarket lens
manufacturers cater for this market/angle....
> There must be technical
> issues with making a good ultra wide to fit a compact DC, not least
> of which must be the small sensor size. Your Ricoh at least has a
> 35mm image to work with. Nobody's proposing the S2 as a pro
> camera, why attack it as one?
That same Ricoh was never proposed as a pro-camera either, but as a
creative niche-camera. (there was even a 21mm version once!)
No way it would stand thousands of films each year.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
