Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Why? Because you believe that "mirrorless cameras can only be dinky little
things"??
That's ridiculous, PJ.
He didn't say that mirrorless cameras can only be dinky little things,
he said that most of them are a lot smaller than the Leica.
There is this odd property of physics that it is a lot easier to make a
camera larger (by attaching a grip) than it is to make it smaller. Also,
an awful lot of photos are missed not because of a camera's performance,
but because it was too large to conveniently carry. Therefore, making a
camera smaller will sell a lot more units than making it larger.
One of the key selling points to a lot of people of mirrorless cameras
is that they are smaller. I know several people who have u4/3 cameras as
a second system because their DSLR is too big for them to conveniently
carry with them all of the time.
I know that you are intelligent enough to know all of these things.
Sometimes I think that you misinterpret people just because you enjoy
arguing.
G
On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:46 PM, P.J. Alling<[email protected]> wrote:
Well, the Leica SL is huge for a mirrorless camera, even a FF mirroless, like
the Sony A7II. It's all relative really.
--
Larry Colen [email protected] (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
--
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.
