On 9 February 2012 15:16, P. J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe because they couldn't even photograph it to look like a Spotty, it was > grossly huge by comparison and looked ungainly. > > The i10 on the other hand was about as ordinary a P&S as you could find. In > fact Kodak had a model that had exactly the same specifications silhouette > and control placement. Probably made in the same factory. The only > difference was that it had Kodak emblazoned on it and sold for half the > price. > >
I can't argue about the 50th Anniversary DSLR's ungainly looks. The Spotmatic is a difficult camera to emulate. Its proportions are delicately poised on the boundary of elegance and awkwardness. The arched ridge at the front seemed dated even in the sixties, in juxtaposition to its otherwise clean, simple lines. As for the I-10, it's a good thing that Pentax got the retro bug out of its system with an unimportant model. That allowed the Q to go ahead with a fresh new style. It's a gem of a camera, which it wouldn't have been with the I-10's dumpy, dated appearance. Sixties/seventies retro might work for Olympus, whose great style statement and lasting image was the OM series (along with the Trip which they also rebirthed), but I honestly can't see it working for Pentax. While it has several landmark camera series in its history from a fans POV, none of them really stand out as design icons. But if Pentax were to go down Nostalgia Road, my vote would be split between the MX for being the sleekest Pentax, the KX for being the most handsome Pentax, and the K2 for being the sexiest Pentax. Sorry LX, you're OK looking but a little bland. regards, Anthony "Of what use is lens and light to those who lack in mind and sight" (Anon) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
