Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
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.
I think that you are the only person that read his statement that way.
Who cares what "a lot of people" want? Or what marketing has done to take
advantage of that desire?
People like myself who cannot get certain features because marketing has
deemed them to not be economically feasible.
That, and your usual snarky ad hominem BS, is irrelevant.
Irrelevant, but humorous. I don't tease you any more than I tease anyone
else on the list that I like.
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.
--
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.
