Hi David, Recently, you wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:45:36 -0700 > From: "David Young" <telyt@xxxxxxxxx> > > Obvioulsly, Neil, you haven't used the R8 or 9! I used to own the R5 > % R6= (amongst others) as well as the OM-1. > > And, yes, it's true that the R8 & R9 are bigger. But they are so much= > better laid out, that every control falls to hand, exactly where you > think= it should be.. and every function works as you think it > should. > I have only handled both the R8 & R9... not "used" them in the sense of taking the time to get used to their ergonomics. And, perhaps their control layout *is* better than the R5 (which wouldn't be saying much, IMO). However, I would no more want to get used to an R9 than get used to the Nikon F1 that made me choose an OM-1! ;-) I suppose that's the reason that there are so many choices available... if one form factor was clearly best, others couldn't sell at all. > Lastly, I don't see the R10d being any form factor than the R8/9, as > Leica= do not have the money to design and tool a new body, and I > fear the older= R4/5/6/7 casting will not allow enough space for the > electronics in a= digital body. > IMO, Leica should get out of the body business if the best they can do is come up with models that don't sell anyway. The day of the mechanical camera in 35mm form factor is pretty much over. Besides that, I don't think the issue is space for the electronics in a dSLR. Considering that the electronics shouldn't require much more space than they do in the smallest P&S digitals, and that losing most of the mechanicals mean that dSLRs should be cheaper (and easier to build if assembled by robots), I think that the size of today's dSLRs is mainly driven by a desire to justify their expense by giving one "more for their money". Perhaps I'll feel differently after my second coffee! ;-) Regards, Neil ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/