Sid Barris wrote: > > Hi, > I was just looking at the pentax USA site, and reading the dimensions of > the body of the *ist; having no frame of reference to make it real, I > pulled an old broken MG body off the shelf and measured it, and found > some interesting comparisons to the MG, which most of us older folks > know is "quite small:" > > The *ist is 3/8th of an inch narrower. (!!)
*side to side, or is this height? > about an 1/8th inch shorter, *top to bottom, as in 'less tall'? > and about 1/2 inch deeper. *front to back? I'd call that thicker... > also, 4 ounces lighter. > > Wow. that is compact. > [...] > > Sid Curious...I wonder why they'd need to make it 1/2" thicker? keith whaley
