In camera terms is certainly is. Look at a pair side by side sometime.
Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an
LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the
LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The
width of an ME is 96% of that of an MX, hum pretty close to the
difference in size between an MX and an LX.. While it is true that the
ME is front to back the same dimension as an MX, and from baseplate to
to the top of the Prism housing the same height (it would have to be
wouldn't it), if you look at the difference from base plate to top
plate, excluding the prism housing you'll see that the difference is
about the same as from side to side. (I don't have them right at hand so
I can't measure them exactly). This makes a huge difference in the
size, and handling. So I stand by my statement.
Cotty wrote:
> On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>> The ME is much smaller than
>> the MX,
>>
>
> Poppycock.
>
>
--
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.
-- P. J. O'Roarke
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
