On 2/08/03 3:46 PM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but digital does not necessarily level the field. There's a > limit for miniaturization. A DSLR will always have more resources > than a p&s, and the difference in ergonomics is what makes apart a > tool from a toy. Modular SLR systems are not an accident. Hi Alin, I always respect your opinion. And I was not necessarily talking about the SLR becoming P&S as a toyish format. I was thinking more in line with Contax G type which cannot be called a P&S but it is certainly not an SLR. Miniaturization for the sake of miniaturization is not practical, however, the shift to digital is giving more freedom to designers (I think), and the same amount of the resources and the functions today's SLR (or DSLR) have can be packed into the smaller box with more flexible form. F5/1V type heavy and bulky boxes will be the first to go. I am personally looking forward to something which will break the mould with more convenient functions which today's SLRs could not achieve. In the perfect world, DSLR is already eliminating the film transport mechanism (a big space), the need to change the film speed (I know ISO 400 still has a lot of noise, depending on the model) and the type of film (tungsten or daylight etc. I know the white balance is still not perfect but very usable). But in my mind, I also am looking forward to a high end film SLR with more solid basic functions (no gimmick, no robo camera) with a solid body (metal preferable but metal cladding is fine), the one which is a gem of craftsmanship and I can bring to my grave :-). I meant the levelling the filed in the sense that all competitions are essentially starting fresh, launching into uncharted water, not in the sense of comparison between today's P&S and SLRs. Interesting time, indeed. Cheers, Ken
