[LRflex] Re: Erwin Puts on the DM-R

Neil,

I've HAD my second cup of coffee and I say that you are spot on!  I also
totally agree with your second note on this subject.

David-- The totality of the R8/9 size is not needed to contain the
electronics
of your mythical R10d, but economics would probably dictate that size.  I
for one, could live with the size of the R4 thru R7 in a digital offering.
The
R9 size is 'de trop'.

Jerry


Neil Gould wrote:

> 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/

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: