PJ's statement says that because other mirrorless cameras are smaller than the SL, the SL is huge. The part "even FF mirrorless like the Sony" *implies* that all mirrorless cameras ought to be small. This is a ridiculous notion. Period.
Who cares what "a lot of people" want? Or what marketing has done to take advantage of that desire? That, and your usual snarky ad hominem BS, is irrelevant. G On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > ... > 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. >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> Why? Because you believe that "mirrorless cameras can only be dinky little >> things"?? >> That's ridiculous, PJ. > >>> 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. -- 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.
