At 10:11 AM 2/19/2002 -0500, Fred wrote: > >> Aw, c'mon, "brother" Aaron, please don't carry that "Brotherhood" > >> stuff over to this thread, too. Remember, this thread is about > >> ~fast~ glass, not just about ~big~ glass - <g>. > > > Heh. I'm serious, though. Put a Pentax 67 next to an F5. Compare > > physical size. Compare weight. Hell, my old Mamiya C330 twin lens > > weighed more than my 67 and was significantly more awkward to hand-hold. > >Why an F5? Why not an LX, say, or an MX?
Because the LX and MX are so much smaller than the F5 that the comparison would be ludicrous. The advantage of a small format should be the small size of the equipment. The Nikon breaks that rule so the comparison makes the 67 look even better. (Gee, these brotherhood guys are crafty). > > The Pentax 67 is only big or heavy when compared to the smallest and > > lightest of 35mm cameras. > >Well, have you forgotten JCO's "Pentax Family" photo >(http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pentaxfamily.jpg), where the >Spotmatic is dwarfed by the 6x7 (and the Spotmatic is not one of the >"smallest and lightest of 35mm cameras"), just as the 110 is dwarfed >by the Spotmatic? > >Fred >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
