I can relate to that. A lot of people seem to be obsessed with how small a camera is. Since I don�t carry a camera with me all the time - while doing other things - I don't care much about size and weight. When I'm photographing, I don't do anything else. So, I don't need a camera that will fit in a pocket. I'm more concerned about the results and the quality of my outfit. On the other hand I�m quite happy with the (small) size and weight of the *ist D. It fits me (I have rather small hands), but I'mm quite happy it's not smaller.
For MF I use a Pentacon Six, which handles like a 35mm SLR and produce good reslults. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. december 2004 05:24 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Delightfully Diminutive To me, twice the size and twice the weight is irrelevant. Perhaps that's a function of my having shot Pentax 6x7 for quite a while and my predilection for equipment that has enough heft to be capable of anchoring itself. I have a very compact Leica, and sometimes I enjoy shooting with that -- ditto an MX and 40/2.8 -- but for the most part the size of the equipment is somewhat irrelevant when I'm concerned about getting good results. And, as I said, in most cases I prefer a heftier rig. Paul > The FA 20 f2.8, compared to the Sigma 20mm f1.8. The Sigma is twice the size and > more than twice the weight. Well, I'll be testing the newcomer to see how it > does at f2.8 relative to the Sigma. > > The manual that came with it has a printing date of 2003. So I guess there was a > manufacturing run last year. I suspect this will mean that a DA or D FA 18-20 > won't appear anytime soon. > > Joe > >
